Re: DOLRT: A cautionary tale from NYC .... Light Rail’s Dark Side: How Will NYC Pay for the BQX?
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Schewel, Steve
Feb 8, 2017, 12:59:51 AM2/8/17
to Alex Cabanes, Orange County Board of County Commissioners, Town Council, Council Members, Wendy Jacobs, James Hill, Ellen Reckhow, Heidi Carter, Brenda Howerton
Alex,
Thanks for writing. I don't know anything about New York City's plan for this light rail line, but I can see that the article is critical of value capture as the way that the author claims that NYC plans to pay for the line. And the passages you quote are about this plan to rely on value capture in New York. Value capture may be some small part of the way the Durham-Orange Light Rail is paid for, but it would be a very small part. So this article's critique of the New York line's financing really isn't relevant to what we're doing here in our region.
Sincerely,
Steve
Sent from my iPad
> On Feb 7, 2017, at 5:35 PM, Alex Cabanes <alex...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> A cautionary tale from New York City? Even NYC is saying LRT is too expensive! And this from the Village Voice?
>
> Here are some of the passages that parallel our current DOLRT discussion (especially with the recent Chapel Hill / OWASA water main break this last weekend) and are far too familiar:
>
> * While some gentrification-wary residents suspect a stealth ploy by developers like David Walentas's Two Trees Management — which not only first concocted the idea, but continues to play a central role in planning discussions
> * interviews with development experts and the project’s planners, finds that claims of the BQX paying its own way rely on untenably optimistic assumptions and creative bookkeeping.
> * To pay off a $2.5 billion construction nut, a streetcar would need to single-handedly boost these values by another 17 percent — and if that failed to materialize, the city would have to pay the debt out of its general fund.
> * A 2016 study by the city Economic Development Corporation estimated that the "transit premium" would generate enough cash flow to pay off $2.5 billion in bonds; a separate Friends of the BQX study projected 86,000 new jobs between now and 2045.
> * most economic studies show only correlation between streetcars and economic growth, not causation;
> * EDC's own study doesn't claim that a streetcar would cause waterfront property values to surge above their already healthy clip — it just predicts they'd rise from what they are now, but not relative to what they would be without the BQX
> * This runs the risk that the streetcar could end up siphoning off new tax receipts that the city could otherwise spend elsewhere
> * The danger of double-booking revenues is one reason why many development experts view tax increment financing — value capture's original name — skeptically. "TIFs have been used for everything under the sun
> * "Not just taking a four-story building where one story is not used as efficiently — you need that four-story building to become a fifteen-story building." And once cities cut open their roadbeds and discover the state of the water mains and other infrastructure underneath, she warns, "you can often double the cost of these projects."
> * Or the city could scrap trains entirely and build dedicated express bus lanes, which would provide similar time savings for a fraction of the cost. (A recent Select Bus Service route in the Bronx cost just 1.2 percent of the per-mile cost of a streetcar.) Friends of the BQX director Ya-Ting Liu does note that the buses can only carry half as many passengers as light rail, and can run fewer trips per hour — but even that figure might still be a better bang for the buck.
> * If there's one lesson from value capture programs, she says, it's "don't trust any argument that says 'it'll pay for itself.' That's a recipe for disaster."
>
> Here is marked up version of the original article:
>
> or the original article online:
> @ http://www.villagevoice.com/news/light-rail-s-dark-side-how-will-nyc-pay-for-the-bqx-9651734
>
> We clearly are not New York City, in size or density … but it does make you stop and think, am I missing something?
>
> Sincerely,
> Alex Cabanes
>
> BTW, Light Rail without grade separated guideways is a street car …. just like DOLRT with over 40 at-grade crossings.
>
>
> "Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.”
>
> —— OR ——
>
> "History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes”
> <Light Rail’s Dark Side How Will NYC Pay for the BQX Village Voice.pdf>
Thanks for writing. I don't know anything about New York City's plan for this light rail line, but I can see that the article is critical of value capture as the way that the author claims that NYC plans to pay for the line. And the passages you quote are about this plan to rely on value capture in New York. Value capture may be some small part of the way the Durham-Orange Light Rail is paid for, but it would be a very small part. So this article's critique of the New York line's financing really isn't relevant to what we're doing here in our region.
Sincerely,
Steve
Sent from my iPad
> On Feb 7, 2017, at 5:35 PM, Alex Cabanes <alex...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> A cautionary tale from New York City? Even NYC is saying LRT is too expensive! And this from the Village Voice?
>
> Here are some of the passages that parallel our current DOLRT discussion (especially with the recent Chapel Hill / OWASA water main break this last weekend) and are far too familiar:
>
> * While some gentrification-wary residents suspect a stealth ploy by developers like David Walentas's Two Trees Management — which not only first concocted the idea, but continues to play a central role in planning discussions
> * interviews with development experts and the project’s planners, finds that claims of the BQX paying its own way rely on untenably optimistic assumptions and creative bookkeeping.
> * To pay off a $2.5 billion construction nut, a streetcar would need to single-handedly boost these values by another 17 percent — and if that failed to materialize, the city would have to pay the debt out of its general fund.
> * A 2016 study by the city Economic Development Corporation estimated that the "transit premium" would generate enough cash flow to pay off $2.5 billion in bonds; a separate Friends of the BQX study projected 86,000 new jobs between now and 2045.
> * most economic studies show only correlation between streetcars and economic growth, not causation;
> * EDC's own study doesn't claim that a streetcar would cause waterfront property values to surge above their already healthy clip — it just predicts they'd rise from what they are now, but not relative to what they would be without the BQX
> * This runs the risk that the streetcar could end up siphoning off new tax receipts that the city could otherwise spend elsewhere
> * The danger of double-booking revenues is one reason why many development experts view tax increment financing — value capture's original name — skeptically. "TIFs have been used for everything under the sun
> * "Not just taking a four-story building where one story is not used as efficiently — you need that four-story building to become a fifteen-story building." And once cities cut open their roadbeds and discover the state of the water mains and other infrastructure underneath, she warns, "you can often double the cost of these projects."
> * Or the city could scrap trains entirely and build dedicated express bus lanes, which would provide similar time savings for a fraction of the cost. (A recent Select Bus Service route in the Bronx cost just 1.2 percent of the per-mile cost of a streetcar.) Friends of the BQX director Ya-Ting Liu does note that the buses can only carry half as many passengers as light rail, and can run fewer trips per hour — but even that figure might still be a better bang for the buck.
> * If there's one lesson from value capture programs, she says, it's "don't trust any argument that says 'it'll pay for itself.' That's a recipe for disaster."
>
> Here is marked up version of the original article:
>
> or the original article online:
> @ http://www.villagevoice.com/news/light-rail-s-dark-side-how-will-nyc-pay-for-the-bqx-9651734
>
> We clearly are not New York City, in size or density … but it does make you stop and think, am I missing something?
>
> Sincerely,
> Alex Cabanes
>
> BTW, Light Rail without grade separated guideways is a street car …. just like DOLRT with over 40 at-grade crossings.
>
>
> "Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.”
>
> —— OR ——
>
> "History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes”
> <Light Rail’s Dark Side How Will NYC Pay for the BQX Village Voice.pdf>
Schewel, Steve
Feb 8, 2017, 5:33:37 PM2/8/17
to Alex Cabanes, Orange County Board of County Commissioners, Town Council, Council Members, Wendy Jacobs, James Hill, Ellen Reckhow, Heidi Carter, Brenda Howerton
Alex,
Thanks for these additional points. Let me try to address each of them very briefly. I know we fundamentally disagree about the light rail and its importance to the future of our region. But I think you raise some very good points that I want to respond to.
Regarding stealth developers on the BQX: I agree that having a project driven by "stealth developers" would be very bad, indeed, and we need to make sure that doesn't happen here.
Regarding optimistic assumptions and creative bookkeeping: Again, I agree with you that it is critical that the assumptions for the light rail finances are realistic and not overly optimistic. I am pleased that the current light rail plan for Durham and Orange has a 30% contingency built into it in anticipation unexpected problems. I think this is one good way to guard against being overly optimistic--to have a plan with a large unallocated contingency that is part of the financial plan.
As for the "creative bookkeeping," I have seen no evidence of that on the part of GoTriangle. I think the recently released plan update is totally transparent and very, very simple and clear to the public and to elected officials. At the city council level and at the MPO, we've asked lots of questions about it, and I've very satisfied at the level of responsiveness and transparency.
Again, I agree with you that we need to be vigilant about this.
Regarding the correlation with economic growth, not causation: Again, I think you make a good point. I don't think the light rail will cause a lot of new economic growth. But what I do think it will do, as it has done in Charlotte and many other areas, is to help to concentrate that growth, reducing sprawl, reducing air pollution, reducing miles driven (and our region is number one in the nation in miles driven per person!), reducing the need for new highways, reducing the cost of transportation for people who will be living in increasing numbers near the rail line, and making jobs much more accessible for those people. It is concentrating growth rather than creating a low of new growth that I think is the greatest advantage of the light rail in terms of how it will effect growth.
Regarding the BRT lower cost: BRT can be done cheaply, as it has often been done in the U.S., and then it doesn't work. It doesn't move people quickly, reduce sprawl, reduce pollution, or do any of the other things we need a good transit system to do. That's because a poorly conceived--and cheap--BRT system mainly moves people in buses on existing roadways, which aren't "rapid" at all.
A good BRT system, as seen in some other countries, can move people very quickly. Here's the rub: Those systems are quite expensive for the same reason the light rail is quite expensive. That is, a truly rapid BRT would have to do all the things the light rail has to do to get people off the roads and into a fast BRT lane. That includes right-of-way acquisition, tons of engineering for flyovers and other features, station construction, and most of all a dedicated BRT pathway exactly comparable to a light rail pathway. In other words, we could build a BRT on the same path as our current light rail plan, but it would require most of the expensive things the light rail requires now. Still, I have seen estimations that it might be $300-400 million cheaper in year-of-construction dollars (out of the $2.5 billion total cost). That's a lot of money. But the problem is that the BRT will never do two things the light rail will: concentrate growth, which is a critical advantage to our region; and allow large numbers of people to move at once. With the light rail, as the population grows, we can add cars, making trains longer and longer on the same tracks, all run by a single driver. So we can get, for example, trains of several cars long moving quickly into UNC Hospital to bring employees there. Buses can't do that nearly as well, and that will matter a lot over time. So I think the light rail remains the best choice compared to BRT for that reason. I am perfectly willing to say that a reasonable person could disagree with me on that and make a good case for BRT. I continue to think that the light rail is a better choice for our region.
Regarding unrealistic assumptions on housing density: I have studied the Durham-Orange light rail plan closely, and I do not believe it makes any ambitious claims about housing density as a driver of the light rail project. So I'm not sure what you are referring to here. Again, I'm not familiar with the details of the New York case cited in the article, but since our light rail system will not rely much, if at all, on value capture, I'm not sure how this matters to the financial concerns you are raising. I do believe, as I have seen with my own eyes in Charlotte and other cities, that the light rail will concentrate growth, and that includes residential growth, and I think that's a very good thing. I haven't seen that quantified in any exact terms or in ways that I think are problematic.
So those are my thoughts, Alex. Our region will continue to grow very rapidly, and if we don't want to be stuck in gridlock all along 54, 15-501, I-40 and other corridors, we need rail to be an important part of our regional future. It's expensive, and we need to be very careful with our funding of it. But we need to figure out how to make this happen so we can remain a wonderful place for people to live, work and play. We are making a decision here for the folks that live here in 30 years, in 50 years. We've got to start to build a great transit backbone now.
Best wishes,
>
> Thanks Steve. Good to hear from you. Clearly we are not NYC.
>
> However, you may have missed some of the finer points beyond simply the BQX ‘value capture’ financing discussion, such as:
>
> * stealth role of developers in the project
> * untenably optimistic assumptions and creative bookkeeping
> * correlation with economic growth, not causation
> * BRT lower cost
> * unrealistic assumptions on housing density
>
> I believe these finer points are very relevant to our area’s situation.
>
> Sincerely,
> Alex Cabanes
Thanks for these additional points. Let me try to address each of them very briefly. I know we fundamentally disagree about the light rail and its importance to the future of our region. But I think you raise some very good points that I want to respond to.
Regarding stealth developers on the BQX: I agree that having a project driven by "stealth developers" would be very bad, indeed, and we need to make sure that doesn't happen here.
Regarding optimistic assumptions and creative bookkeeping: Again, I agree with you that it is critical that the assumptions for the light rail finances are realistic and not overly optimistic. I am pleased that the current light rail plan for Durham and Orange has a 30% contingency built into it in anticipation unexpected problems. I think this is one good way to guard against being overly optimistic--to have a plan with a large unallocated contingency that is part of the financial plan.
As for the "creative bookkeeping," I have seen no evidence of that on the part of GoTriangle. I think the recently released plan update is totally transparent and very, very simple and clear to the public and to elected officials. At the city council level and at the MPO, we've asked lots of questions about it, and I've very satisfied at the level of responsiveness and transparency.
Again, I agree with you that we need to be vigilant about this.
Regarding the correlation with economic growth, not causation: Again, I think you make a good point. I don't think the light rail will cause a lot of new economic growth. But what I do think it will do, as it has done in Charlotte and many other areas, is to help to concentrate that growth, reducing sprawl, reducing air pollution, reducing miles driven (and our region is number one in the nation in miles driven per person!), reducing the need for new highways, reducing the cost of transportation for people who will be living in increasing numbers near the rail line, and making jobs much more accessible for those people. It is concentrating growth rather than creating a low of new growth that I think is the greatest advantage of the light rail in terms of how it will effect growth.
Regarding the BRT lower cost: BRT can be done cheaply, as it has often been done in the U.S., and then it doesn't work. It doesn't move people quickly, reduce sprawl, reduce pollution, or do any of the other things we need a good transit system to do. That's because a poorly conceived--and cheap--BRT system mainly moves people in buses on existing roadways, which aren't "rapid" at all.
A good BRT system, as seen in some other countries, can move people very quickly. Here's the rub: Those systems are quite expensive for the same reason the light rail is quite expensive. That is, a truly rapid BRT would have to do all the things the light rail has to do to get people off the roads and into a fast BRT lane. That includes right-of-way acquisition, tons of engineering for flyovers and other features, station construction, and most of all a dedicated BRT pathway exactly comparable to a light rail pathway. In other words, we could build a BRT on the same path as our current light rail plan, but it would require most of the expensive things the light rail requires now. Still, I have seen estimations that it might be $300-400 million cheaper in year-of-construction dollars (out of the $2.5 billion total cost). That's a lot of money. But the problem is that the BRT will never do two things the light rail will: concentrate growth, which is a critical advantage to our region; and allow large numbers of people to move at once. With the light rail, as the population grows, we can add cars, making trains longer and longer on the same tracks, all run by a single driver. So we can get, for example, trains of several cars long moving quickly into UNC Hospital to bring employees there. Buses can't do that nearly as well, and that will matter a lot over time. So I think the light rail remains the best choice compared to BRT for that reason. I am perfectly willing to say that a reasonable person could disagree with me on that and make a good case for BRT. I continue to think that the light rail is a better choice for our region.
Regarding unrealistic assumptions on housing density: I have studied the Durham-Orange light rail plan closely, and I do not believe it makes any ambitious claims about housing density as a driver of the light rail project. So I'm not sure what you are referring to here. Again, I'm not familiar with the details of the New York case cited in the article, but since our light rail system will not rely much, if at all, on value capture, I'm not sure how this matters to the financial concerns you are raising. I do believe, as I have seen with my own eyes in Charlotte and other cities, that the light rail will concentrate growth, and that includes residential growth, and I think that's a very good thing. I haven't seen that quantified in any exact terms or in ways that I think are problematic.
So those are my thoughts, Alex. Our region will continue to grow very rapidly, and if we don't want to be stuck in gridlock all along 54, 15-501, I-40 and other corridors, we need rail to be an important part of our regional future. It's expensive, and we need to be very careful with our funding of it. But we need to figure out how to make this happen so we can remain a wonderful place for people to live, work and play. We are making a decision here for the folks that live here in 30 years, in 50 years. We've got to start to build a great transit backbone now.
Best wishes,
Steve
Sent from my iPad
> On Feb 8, 2017, at 7:18 AM, Alex Cabanes <alex...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Sent from my iPad
>
> Thanks Steve. Good to hear from you. Clearly we are not NYC.
>
> However, you may have missed some of the finer points beyond simply the BQX ‘value capture’ financing discussion, such as:
>
> * stealth role of developers in the project
> * untenably optimistic assumptions and creative bookkeeping
> * correlation with economic growth, not causation
> * BRT lower cost
> * unrealistic assumptions on housing density
>
> I believe these finer points are very relevant to our area’s situation.
>
> Sincerely,
> Alex Cabanes
>
>
> On Feb 8, 2017, at 12:59 AM, Schewel, Steve <Steve....@durhamnc.gov<mailto:Steve....@durhamnc.gov>> wrote:
>
> Alex,
> Thanks for writing. I don't know anything about New York City's plan for this light rail line, but I can see that the article is critical of value capture as the way that the author claims that NYC plans to pay for the line. And the passages you quote are about this plan to rely on value capture in New York. Value capture may be some small part of the way the Durham-Orange Light Rail is paid for, but it would be a very small part. So this article's critique of the New York line's financing really isn't relevant to what we're doing here in our region.
>
> Sincerely,
> Steve
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>
> On Feb 8, 2017, at 12:59 AM, Schewel, Steve <Steve....@durhamnc.gov<mailto:Steve....@durhamnc.gov>> wrote:
>
> Alex,
> Thanks for writing. I don't know anything about New York City's plan for this light rail line, but I can see that the article is critical of value capture as the way that the author claims that NYC plans to pay for the line. And the passages you quote are about this plan to rely on value capture in New York. Value capture may be some small part of the way the Durham-Orange Light Rail is paid for, but it would be a very small part. So this article's critique of the New York line's financing really isn't relevant to what we're doing here in our region.
>
> Sincerely,
> Steve
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
Alex Cabanes
Feb 9, 2017, 8:18:38 AM2/9/17
to Steve....@durhamnc.gov, Orange County Board of County Commissioners, Town Council, cou...@durhamnc.gov, Wendy Jacobs, James Hill, Ellen Reckhow, Heidi Carter, Brenda Howerton
Hi Steve.
Thank you for your continued engagement on this critically important issue.
I appreciate that you and your peers are looking at making a "decision here for the folks that live here in 50 years", unfortunately our children and grand children will still be paying off the incurred DOLRT debt in said 50 years, severely limiting our community’s flexibility to adapt to a rapidly changing world and evolving technology.
Here are just two videos that show the impact of technology on future transit:
GoTriangle has been anything but transparent. Today’s reality, is that DOLRT will cost $2.5 BILLION (YOE) with 40% or $1 BILLION to come from local funding and take 46 minutes end-to-end travel with service in 2029 with $28.9 million operating cost. That’s 17.7 miles or $141 million per mile (Charlotte BLE cost $126 million per mile). Going in a serpentine route thru wetlands and green pastures while carving out a new 50’ steel highway along the way (roughly equivalent to a 4 lane highway).
So 5 years into the project we get a slower train delivered 4 years later which requires 3X more local funding, costs 80% more to build (so far), is 35% slower, 2X more expensive to operate, with 2/3 the platform capacity. And GoTriangle has yet to break ground!
GoTriangle finally revealed over the holidays to County Commissioners they needed local funds to help close a 15% funding gap (that had existed for years since the original 10% state maximum was enacted HB 672. 136-189.10.3g) and rushed Commissioners to sign a critical ‘non-binding’ letter of intent in December committing local officials to secure the additional 15% funding …
Simple, just like Wall Street did with sub-prime, zero-down, credit-default-swaps, shifting assumptions and risks off the ledger. GoTriangle magically shifted DOLRT capital expenses off the ledger into operating expenses with ‘excesses’ to be recovered later. And a lot more DEBT, extending debt repayments for half-a-century until 2062 (with no identified way to pay for it)! The DOLRT expenses and 40% local tax payer liabilities are still there, just buried elsewhere off the ledger.
- impact of autonomous vehicles on reducing traffic congestion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHzzSao6ypE
- demonstration of Tesla’s current self-driving technology: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-xbDK3-5ew
The promise, when Durham (2011) and Orange County (2012) residents approved the 1/2 cent sales tax / public transit referendum, was for DOLRT to cost $1.4 BILLION (in 2011) of which 25% or $350 million coming from local funds and take 34 minutes end-to-end with service in 2025 and $14.3 million operating cost. Ideally thru existing rail right of way and help redevelop downtown Durham.
GoTriangle has been anything but transparent. Today’s reality, is that DOLRT will cost $2.5 BILLION (YOE) with 40% or $1 BILLION to come from local funding and take 46 minutes end-to-end travel with service in 2029 with $28.9 million operating cost. That’s 17.7 miles or $141 million per mile (Charlotte BLE cost $126 million per mile). Going in a serpentine route thru wetlands and green pastures while carving out a new 50’ steel highway along the way (roughly equivalent to a 4 lane highway).
So 5 years into the project we get a slower train delivered 4 years later which requires 3X more local funding, costs 80% more to build (so far), is 35% slower, 2X more expensive to operate, with 2/3 the platform capacity. And GoTriangle has yet to break ground!
GoTriangle finally revealed over the holidays to County Commissioners they needed local funds to help close a 15% funding gap (that had existed for years since the original 10% state maximum was enacted HB 672. 136-189.10.3g) and rushed Commissioners to sign a critical ‘non-binding’ letter of intent in December committing local officials to secure the additional 15% funding …
Now, GoTriangle starts 2017 announcing an amazing feat of ‘financial engineering’ and says DOLRT is fully funded? How did GoTriangle accomplish this ‘Christmas miracle’?
- Durham County commissioners agree to seek more light-rail money
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/community/durham-news/article120709753.html
- GoTriangle now expects to fill light-rail funding gap with loans
http://www.heraldsun.com/news/gotriangle-now-expects-to-fill-light-rail-funding-gap-with/article_7ac4a89a-d466-11e6-8665-b3d808c72aa9.html
Simple, just like Wall Street did with sub-prime, zero-down, credit-default-swaps, shifting assumptions and risks off the ledger. GoTriangle magically shifted DOLRT capital expenses off the ledger into operating expenses with ‘excesses’ to be recovered later. And a lot more DEBT, extending debt repayments for half-a-century until 2062 (with no identified way to pay for it)! The DOLRT expenses and 40% local tax payer liabilities are still there, just buried elsewhere off the ledger.
You may find comfort in the 30% contingency - except when you look at comparable LRT projects with 100% cost overruns (as in Charlotte LYNX). These cost overruns will be borne by Orange and Durham citizens - and could in itself bankrupt our counties.
Meanwhile, Chapel Hill is building NS-BRT for $125 million (8.2 miles @ $15 million per mile) with service in 2020 and $3.4 million operating cost (http://nscstudy.org/) with dedicated guideway (with a few exceptions due to UNC/building impediments). Wake County is building BRT system for $400 million (20 miles @ $20 million per mile).
Chapel Hill BRT will deliver mass public transit sooner (a 7 years earlier) at a fraction of the cost (11% cost per mile and 12% operating cost) with less local funding and larger federal grants! In fact, FREE BRT service would be cheaper for riders (and taxpayers), while providing better service, sooner than DOLRT!
For $2.5 BILLION, you could build 166 miles of BRT (vs 17 miles of DOLRT). Now THAT would be mass public transit!
Meanwhile, Chapel Hill is building NS-BRT for $125 million (8.2 miles @ $15 million per mile) with service in 2020 and $3.4 million operating cost (http://nscstudy.org/) with dedicated guideway (with a few exceptions due to UNC/building impediments). Wake County is building BRT system for $400 million (20 miles @ $20 million per mile).
Chapel Hill BRT will deliver mass public transit sooner (a 7 years earlier) at a fraction of the cost (11% cost per mile and 12% operating cost) with less local funding and larger federal grants! In fact, FREE BRT service would be cheaper for riders (and taxpayers), while providing better service, sooner than DOLRT!
For $2.5 BILLION, you could build 166 miles of BRT (vs 17 miles of DOLRT). Now THAT would be mass public transit!
As you point out, anything can be done cheaply and implemented poorly. However, a properly implemented BRT with dedicated guideways, permanence features, etc can provide the similar benefits at a fraction of the cost. BRT continues to expand globally, with over 400 BRT lines in 195 cities serving approximately 32.4 million people daily. Please review the enclosed estimates for Chapel Hill and Wake BRT projects. If afterwards, you still remain convinced that BRT is more expensive than LRT, I ask that you please share the name of one BRT system that has approached $141 million per mile … any please?
As an engaged citizen, I am particularly frustrated by the continued misrepresentations from GoTriangle that go largely unchallenged by our elected officials. I was (perhaps naively) hoping that the facts would actually carry some weight in informed decision making. I am very, very sorry, that as our taxes continue to increase to pay for this fiscally and environmentally unsound project, that public transit and affordable housing will be an ever increasing problem in our community.
Sincerely,
Alex Cabanes
PS, As our elected officials, I certainly hope that we are not at an impasse, as you may have suggested in your earlier email.
BTW, Looking thru the list of the recently announced consisting of those who will really profit from this endeavor … prominent real estate developers like Perry, Goodmon, Ingram, Conti, etc
- GoTriangle to create nonprofit to generate more transit revenue
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article120946798.html - So who else is on this list?
- Than Austin, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill – Associate Director of Transportation and Planning
- Brad Ives, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill – Associate Vice Chancellor for Campus Enterprises
- Benjamin Durant, N.C. Central University - Vice Chancellor of Administration and Finance
- Tallman Trask III, Duke University - Executive Vice President
- Chapel Hill Mayor Pam Hemminger
- William Fulkerson, Duke University Health System - Executive Vice President for Duke University Health System
- Karen McCall, UNC Health Care - chief communication and marketing officer
- Kathy Higgins, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina - President, BCBSNC Foundation and VP, Corporate Affairs at Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina
- Chris Bell, Suntrust Bank - Region President at SunTrust
- Gene Conti, The Conti Group
- Michael Goodmon, Capitol Broadcasting Co. - Vice President of Real Estate
- Robert Ingram, Hatteras Venture Partners - General Partner
- Rufus Jackson, Duke Energy - General Manager, Transmission
- David King, former N.C. State Employees Credit Union Foundation Board member (SECU)
- Sam Nichols, Greater Durham Chamber of Commerce (and Senior Vice President First Citizens Bank) and Regional Transportation Alliance
- Roger Perry, East West Partners - President
Humm, rather an interesting set of representatives. Land developers who will profit from the Transit Oriented Developments that they are looking to develop, banks to finance said developments, Duke Energy to sell the dirty electricity, etc.
Attached are the cost comparisons from full function BRT vs LRT for Wake, Durham and Orange.
| Comparison of Costs | ||||||
| Durham-Orange Light Rail vs Bus Rapid Transit vs Commuter Rail | ||||||
| Estimated Costs | ||||||
| One Time Capital | Annual Operating | |||||
| Project | Miles | Total (Millions) | Per Mile (Millions) | Total (Millions) | Per Mile | |
| Durham-Orange Light Rail | 17.7 | $2,500 | $141 | $28.9 | $1,632,768 | |
| Chapel Hill BRT | 8.2 | $125 | $15 | $3.4 | $414,634 | |
| Wake BRT | 20.0 | $400 | $20 | $14.5 | $725,000 | |
| Wake Commuter Rail | 37.0 | $866 | $23 | $20.0 | $540,541 | |
| Sources: Wake Transit Plan, Chapel Hill BRT Plan and GoTriangle Financial Report | ||||||
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages