Huntsville updates

[marvingardns]

Tommy Battle has made raising/removing the height limits one of his priorities if elected (along with creating a new downtown master plan), which is why he's gotten a lot of support from developers; Spencer, well, I think she's going to go with the same old, same old, b/c that's what gets us in the magazine rankings, I guess. Don't get me wrong, I like what she's done for the city, but I think it's time for someone new to take over.

I agree. Loretta has done a great job, but its time for fresh ideas to take the center stage.

[JuanHunt]

My understanding is that Norfolk Southern would never lease their right of way for that purpose.

[neilson]

Originally Posted by JuanHunt

My understanding is that Norfolk Southern would never lease their right of way for that purpose.

And why is that?

[HSVTiger]

Originally Posted by JuanHunt

My understanding is that Norfolk Southern would never lease their right of way for that purpose.

Even if they won't work a plan to add another track. There is actually alot of train traffic and a light rail would probably get in the way. At one time there was talk of having an elevated line in the median of I-565. Pure insanity ! (not really it was a good idea, imagine if we had it now) The point is let's do something, as is we are depending on lethargic ALDOT.
Research Park could have a tram, similar to Huntsville Hospital that would serve the park. Running north south or east west connect Bridge Street with the big comapnies, maybe have a station on University. Use that eyesore dead
shopping center as a Tram station.All of this could be done under the label of research and development for the nations future transportation needs. Disneyland has had a monorail for 50 years.
With all the technology our transportation is primitive.

[Jacknah]

Originally Posted by David1502

It would be great if a light rail were on the existing Norfolk Southern line between Decatur and Downtown Huntsville with stops at the Airport, Madison, Bridge Street, Space Center/UAH and Constellation/Von Braun Center. However, at this time it would not be financially feasible as Madison County has about 300,000 people whereas Metro Atlanta has over 5 milllion people (with 2 million more expected by 2020) and still MARTA struggles to break even. Atlanta also has a large poor urban population with many who don't own a car and are totally dependent on public transit for their livelihood. Huntsville doen't have this base of support. Perhaps if more density were developed along the existing track in the future there could be a density to support public transit in Madison County.

Yeah. Let's increase the number of poor people in Huntsville so we can have that "base of support."

If you subsize poor people you're going to increase the number of them. I'm totally against public transit (unless it's private and operated for profit). If you don't have public transit, poor people move out of the area or they set higher income goals for themselves and we all benefit. But no, everyone here wants to go the socialist and taxation route. At one time Huntsville was the largest city in the nation without public transportation. That was something to be proud of. If you expand public transportation in Huntsville, get ready to see larger and more permanent poverty class, more housing projects to accomodate them, and more crime. And more taxation to pay for it all.

www.bobbarr2008.com

[SpawnOfVulcan]

^^^ Wow...

[| BRAVO |]

Holy Crap!

[Rail Claimore]

Originally Posted by Jacknah

Yeah. Let's increase the number of poor people in Huntsville so we can have that "base of support."

If you subsize poor people you're going to increase the number of them. I'm totally against public transit (unless it's private and operated for profit). If you don't have public transit, poor people move out of the area or they set higher income goals for themselves and we all benefit.

I think all transportation modes should be privatized, including roads. People should pay the full cost of transportation no matter what the mode. When something is subsidized, you get more of it, no matter what that might be.

But we don't live in that kind of world, and while I think any transit options outside of some random bus service (which Huntsville has already) and lunchtime shopper shuttles (between office buildings and Bridge Street or Madison Square) would be a big flop, that last sentence you posted is ridiculous. There's more to the cost of transit for its riders than just a subsidized fare. Other significant costs include a lack of time and place flexibility as well as increased travel time: Transit is not nearly as fast as the private automobile. No one no matter how poor (so long as they work) values time so little that they would not want a personal automobile if they could afford it.

And it's better that those people have an option to get to work rather than be forced to sit at home taking direct transfer payments from our taxes.

[Jacknah]

Originally Posted by Rail Claimore

I think all transportation modes should be privatized, including roads. People should pay the full cost of transportation no matter what the mode. When something is subsidized, you get more of it, no matter what that might be.

But we don't live in that kind of world, and while I think any transit options outside of some random bus service (which Huntsville has already) and lunchtime shopper shuttles (between office buildings and Bridge Street or Madison Square) would be a big flop, that last sentence you posted is ridiculous. There's more to the cost of transit for its riders than just a subsidized fare. Other significant costs include a lack of time and place flexibility as well as increased travel time: Transit is not nearly as fast as the private automobile. No one no matter how poor (so long as they work) values time so little that they would not want a personal automobile if they could afford it.

And it's better that those people have an option to get to work rather than be forced to sit at home taking direct transfer payments from our taxes.

Funny how nearly everyone found a way to get to work when Huntsville had no bus service. People are industrious when they have to be, and not when they don't have to be.

Also, a major incentive to get a job, IS to be able to buy a car. If you don't have to buy a car to get around, you're not as motivated to get a job or to increase your income. If you're on welfare, might as well stay on welfare, since you can get where you want to go with little money.

[SpawnOfVulcan]

Originally Posted by Rail Claimore

I think all transportation modes should be privatized, including roads. People should pay the full cost of transportation no matter what the mode. When something is subsidized, you get more of it, no matter what that might be.

But we don't live in that kind of world, and while I think any transit options outside of some random bus service (which Huntsville has already) and lunchtime shopper shuttles (between office buildings and Bridge Street or Madison Square) would be a big flop, that last sentence you posted is ridiculous. There's more to the cost of transit for its riders than just a subsidized fare. Other significant costs include a lack of time and place flexibility as well as increased travel time: Transit is not nearly as fast as the private automobile. No one no matter how poor (so long as they work) values time so little that they would not want a personal automobile if they could afford it.

And it's better that those people have an option to get to work rather than be forced to sit at home taking direct transfer payments from our taxes.

Thanx you!

IMO, it's like communism. Privatised mass transit looks great on paper, but it would never work. You have to great some government to regulate it, or else quality is gonna go down the tubes and safety might be a nightmare.

A good solution might be a publicly run mass transit system with private investments to pay for most of it.

[Jacknah]

Originally Posted by Alabadrock

Thanx you!

IMO, it's like communism. Privatised mass transit looks great on paper, but it would never work. You have to great some government to regulate it, or else quality is gonna go down the tubes and safety might be a nightmare.

A good solution might be a publicly run mass transit system with private investments to pay for most of it.

It can and does work. Several cities have legalized private competition. I was living in Jersey City. Black market buses (vans) were operating illegally, and charging lower fares than the public bus service. I rode them every morning. Finally they legalized them.

All you have to do is legalize private mass transit. If it's economically feasible, the market will provide it.

[SpawnOfVulcan]

Originally Posted by Jacknah

It can and does work. Several cities have legalized private competition. I was living in Jersey City. Black market buses (vans) were operating illegally, and charging lower fares than the public bus service. I rode them every morning. Finally they legalized them.

All you have to do is legalize private mass transit. If it's economically feasible, the market will provide it.

The only problem is that you can never be assured that it's always going to be there. A big financial problem in somewhere like New York City could make the company go under, or they might have to cease operation because they simply can't afford it. Then what happens?

I'm a capitalistic guy. But, unless the system is publicly operated, I do not believe I would be comfortable using a private mass transit system.

[Rail Claimore]

Originally Posted by Alabadrock

Thanx you!

IMO, it's like communism. Privatised mass transit looks great on paper, but it would never work. You have to great some government to regulate it, or else quality is gonna go down the tubes and safety might be a nightmare.

A good solution might be a publicly run mass transit system with private investments to pay for most of it.

Privatized mass transit actually IS great, where it does make a profit... and on a macro scale, that's in only one country in the world: Japan.

Originally Posted by Jacknah

Funny how nearly everyone found a way to get to work when Huntsville had no bus service. People are industrious when they have to be, and not when they don't have to be.

Also, a major incentive to get a job, IS to be able to buy a car. If you don't have to buy a car to get around, you're not as motivated to get a job or to increase your income. If you're on welfare, might as well stay on welfare, since you can get where you want to go with little money.

Did everyone really get around town before there was bus service in Huntsville? I lived there for 20 years and noticed no fewer folks walking the streets and living in projects during the boom years of the 1990's than in the past few years since we've had bus service (and limited at that).

I'm not dogmatically pro-transit. But when you consider that all modes of transportation are massively subsidized, the cost/benefit ratio of transit (especially rail transit) in comparison to new highways cannot be ignored, particularly when an area reaches a critical size. Which is exactly why I'm for privatizing all forms of transportation... let the market sort things out and find the most efficient ratio between the two.

I really hope all new limited access highways in north Alabama are built as toll roads. We don't need people continously milking a system that should ideally pay for itself.

[Jacknah]

Originally Posted by Alabadrock

The only problem is that you can never be assured that it's always going to be there. A big financial problem in somewhere like New York City could make the company go under, or they might have to cease operation because they simply can't afford it. Then what happens?

I'm a capitalistic guy. But, unless the system is publicly operated, I do not believe I would be comfortable using a private mass transit system.

That's not a practical possibility. Imagine if government were producing all our cars and outlawed private competition. You'd probably be here with the same argument. As long there is money to be made, someone is going to provide the good or service. If there's no longer money to be made, then that's the indication that that good or service is not valued by society anyway. In that case that good or service ought to be no longer provided so that resources can be redirected to something that is valued. Anytime you tax to provide for something that is not profitable to provide, you're taking resources away from being invested toward things that are in higher demand by society. You're just making that society worse off.

[SpawnOfVulcan]

You are right about a lot of things. But, it's a case by case thing. The region is going to need mass transit sometime in the near future, and I promise you, there aren't going to be private corporations jumping for an oppuritunity to provide it, unless in the form of taxis. Look at Birmingham, I think there is a private bus system there, but it's not well maintained. I could be wrong though..

[David1502]

Originally Posted by Jacknah

Yeah. Let's increase the number of poor people in Huntsville so we can have that "base of support."

If you subsize poor people you're going to increase the number of them.

I made that comment about the poor urban population in Atlanta as a point that public transportation in Madison County would struggle to break even simply because there's not as much demand for it as might be found in other cities - not because I am eager to see an increase in poor people just so a public transit system can make it. Supply and demand should rule. There are other metro areas which have an extensive public transit system and have lower poverty rates than what is found in HSV/Madison County so poverty is certainly not a prerequisite. An example is the Silicon Valley area of California where in Santa Clara County (home of San Jose) there is a vast network of light rail (www.vta.org), longer distance rail (www.caltrain.com) as well as buses. The median house price for Santa Clara County until recently was over $800K so it can hardly be considered a community with a high poverty rate. As one who goes out there on businesss it makes it a lot easier to get around without renting a car.
My thinking is that public transit should be market driven and able to pay for itself. When I spoke of higher density along the rail route I mentioned higher end developments like Bridge Street, the Billion dollar development on County Line Rd., Constellation. These could hardly be considered public housing or magnets for poverty.

[SpawnOfVulcan]

Also, you have to think about how much accessibility plays into demand. A lot of entities don't realize that second, mostly, to the independance of owning a car, accessibility is a big reason that people don't ride mass transit.

My aunt lives in Alpharetta, just north of Atlanta, and you have to drive your car to North Springs Station just to get on the train. People reason that they're already in the car, and they've already driven this far, so why park and get on something else. The main problem with the MARTA is how unexpansive it is. If the area were able to expand it massively, which is completely uneconomical feasable, but all costs of contruction aside, I think the system could in some way be profitable. But, that is only with MASSIVE, and boy do I mean MASSIVE investments.

[jmanhsv]

Well, here are my problems with privatized transit:

1) You can't elect a board of executives. Members/leaders of transit authorities run by the government are either appointed by the mayor/city council or, in some instances, elected like any other public official.

2) A private corporation would just probably look at some market surveys and be done with it. With a government-run system, transit leaders stay local, so they have a personal feel about where transit is needed the most. Public involvement is also crucial for a successful transit system.

3) Like what Alabadrock said earlier, what happens if the company goes under? Or if their contract is terminated?

4) If a private corporation takes over a public transit authority, it would more than likely have a monopoly in the area, which means FARE INCREASES galore, much more than a government-run transit system would have. Remember, its all about the $$$. The thing about government is, it's here to serve the people. Corporations are here to make a profit. Which is great in most instances, just not for infrastructure. Imagine having a private company run your local police department. Would you be comfortable with that?

Now, somebody mentioned having a public-private partnership with building a mass-transit system. That wouldn't be as bad, especially right now when the federal government doesn't really have money to spend. But there needs to be government oversight.

Originally Posted by Jacknah

If you subsize poor people you're going to increase the number of them. I'm totally against public transit (unless it's private and operated for profit). If you don't have public transit, poor people move out of the area or they set higher income goals for themselves and we all benefit. But no, everyone here wants to go the socialist and taxation route. At one time Huntsville was the largest city in the nation without public transportation. That was something to be proud of. If you expand public transportation in Huntsville, get ready to see larger and more permanent poverty class, more housing projects to accomodate them, and more crime. And more taxation to pay for it all.

PUBLIC TRANSIT DOES NOT BRING POVERTY OR CRIME. That is some racist BS made up years ago to scare suburbanites out of voting for mass transit (look at MARTA). Look at Detroit for example- all it has in terms of mass transit is the People Mover downtown; and downtown's the best part of that city. Look at the DC suburbs, they don't look impoverished to me. Look at the links David posted. Transit-friendly urban areas all over the country are becoming very coveted right now, and are contributing to the gentrification of many formerly impoverished neighborhoods. And with a well-designed system, Huntsville can have the same success. Do your research, and you'll see that thinking that public transit is just a socialist extension of welfare is just crazy. Damn.

[SpawnOfVulcan]

Big news! I was at the Decatur City Council meetings. The ordinance for all the stuff involved Sweetwater was adopted. It was a bit confusing, Bill Jackson (council president) wasn't very straight forward, but it sounded like they are accepting the contract assuming that all of the city's concerns are worked out.

If I read something that clarifies this, I'll pass it along to y'all.

[Colin Giersberg]

I believe that light rail running on existing NS mainline tracks would be unwise. The traffic issues of the different types of trains is begging for an accident. Yes, freight and passenger trains ran the same tracks years ago, but then there wasn't anywhere near the freight density then as there is now. Perhaps, an elevated track system would work, but the added expense of the system would make that prohibitively expensive.
Our highways already cost $2 million a mile (minimum) for any major construction, and throw a bridge or two in the project, and the cost goes up fast, especially if the bridge is tall, long, or of a unique design.
If memory serve correctly (it probably doesn't), the US. 72 bridge over the Elk River at the Lauderdale / Limestone County line cost around $26 million, and it was built several years ago, and it is a relatively simple bridge in design.
The cost went up with the supports near the river channel, which involved drilling into the mud, and then several feet into solid rock. This helps prevent undermining of the supports in strong currents. So you can see that the costs would make an elevated light rail line very unlikely. And I don't know that NS would even allow light rail to run on their tracks.

Regards, Colin