Durham's 60% to 40% margin for the 1/2 percent transit sales tax eclipsed Mecklenburg's 58-42 margin on its initial vote on the same issue in 1998. In 2012, the two allowed dates for a similar referendum are the primary (currently scheduled for May) and the November general election. Putting the issue on the ballot will involve approval by the Orange County Commissioners, the Durham-Chapel Hill Carrboro MPO, the Burlington-Alamance MPO, and the Triangle Transit Board.
More Information:
Issues:
Comments
but I think you can vote in Dem primary as an unaffiliated now.
Yes, I vote in the Democratic primary every year. I was referring to being on the other side of the ballot (which requires bring in the party holding the primary) as voting doesn't seem to have much impact when the candidates get elected and become subject to the do-nothing groupthink of the Board.
or just exploratory question? I think you'd bring a different voice to the BoCC for sure. One that I think has great passion for what OC believes in and would be an asset.
Really? I thought you could be unaffiliated and vote in either primary. I know a lot of people who switched to unaffiliated in hopes to vote against those Republicans who worked to put Amendment One on the ballot.
Gerry is talking about the requirements to run in the primary. You are talking about the requirements to vote in the primary.
There WILL be a Democratic primary on May 8th. You do not have to vote in the Republican primary in order to vote against hate. There is NO REASON to switch to unaffiliated to vote against the amendment.
Thanks, James. It would be a stretch to even call it "exploratory." It's simply a measure of how frustrated I am and how few alternatives I see when I start to even think about the idea of running. As you probably know I've run for office before, but I am pretty happy to advocate from the OP soapbox most of the time. Being elected brings no end of hard work and personal criticism. I think I have enough of both already.
Transit is crucial to our region's future, and I certainly hope to see some action at the county level to make this referendum happen so we can move forward.
The light-rail route proposed for Chapel Hill avoids 15-501, the town's heavily traveled commercial corridor. The plan was promoted to the Planning Board as an opportunity to densely develope the areas near Barbee Chapel Road on Rte 54 and the intersection of 54 and 15-501. It looks as if the route would bring people to work at the hospitals but keep them away from Chapel Hill businesses. Perhaps the consultants established that route to maximize condemnation of public lands, without considering how to alleviate the Town's heaviest traffic.
I believe that the periphery along 54 and the 54/15-501 intersection cannot be built up without exacerbating traffic problems transit is supposed to help, and that it is ironic to increase sales taxes on businesses for the benefit of proposed future competition.
Deborah Fulghieri
The above comment has a lot of misinformation. The light rail route between Durham and Chapel Hill will mostly be on or near 15-501. However, the route will swing southward near the County line and enter Orange County along NC 54.
The writer's point seemed to be that by swinging to 54 in OC, the LRT avoids existing OC business corridor (Lowe's, Eastgate/Ram's Plaza, UMall). That's a true point, even if you think future 54 development is more important.
...and avoids it until it has passed the commercial corridor. I am sure Mayor Chilton has a map of the proposal and can correct his statement. Mine is not misleading at all.
Deborah Fulghieri
My point is that the assertion that the Light Rail Corridor "avoids 15-501" is just false. It avoids East Franklin Street.Also it is at best disingenuous to say "the consultants established that route to maximize condemnation of public lands." The route in fact does the opposite. Condemning land can be very expensive and unpopular. It's hard to say how much land would need to be condemned under this plan because extremely detailed engineering drawings would need to be done before we would know exactly what land is needed. But mostly the route in Orange County follows the 54 corridor and would likely require less condemnation for that reason. If Chapel Hill selects the Meadowmont option, then that part of the right-of-way is already owned by the Town.The proposed route was selected in order to meet the largest demand while keeping the cost of the project within the bounds of what the 1/2 cent sales tax and projected farebox revenue will support. The route will serve lots of employers/employees. True it will serve UNC Hospitals particularly well, but bear in mind that lots of people will be commuting the other direction as well. The route goes to Duke, downtown Durham and NCCU among other major employment centers in Durham (where many Orange County residents work).Would I like it to come closer to downtown Chapel Hill (or for that matter downtown Carrboro)? Of course. But the ridership projections don't support that yet. But later phases of development could include either or both of those.
Mayor Chilton, you're an influential person whose words automatically carry weight. You must have a map of the proposed LRT, which shows that...
the proposed LRT deviates from 15-501 as soon as it crosses I-40 into Chapel Hill. It parallels I-40 and goes into the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) Jordan flood control lands, either into Meadowmont, or south to cross Rte 54 into Hillmont, formerly known as Woodmont. It then parallels 54 on the south side, goes behind 54East on the Finley Golf Course, and then curves west behind Glenwood Elementary school to parallel 15-501 after the merge with 54. Thus, the proposed LRT avoids every single shopping area along 15-501 in Chapel Hill.
This planned LRT was promoted to Chapel Hill's planning board as a way to densely develope Hillmont, and commercially redevelope Glen Lennox and Glenwood shopping centers, including a possible purchase by developers of Glenwood Elementary School for such purpose. I was there and heard this very rationale.
I reckon it is wrong to impose an additional sales tax to be paid by existing businesses in existing commercial centers that are not to be served by the LRT, for the benefit of not-yet-existing competition along the light rail line.
I also think it is wrong to densely develope at the periphery of town-- the ultimate traffic plug is how I see it.
I do think the proposed route maximizes condemnation of public lands, especially in the ACE property which exists to moderate the level of Jordan Lake and serves as a de facto wildlife preserve.
I do think LRT should serve Chapel Hill's commerce, which doesn't happen with this proposal.
I am not misleading you; it is completely straightforward and therefore not disingenuous at all.
Deborah Fulghieri
First, your original comment was "The light-rail route proposed for Chapel Hill avoids 15-501, the town's heavily traveled commercial corridor." I guess (in light of your clarification and James Barrett's points above) that I mis-interpretted your statement. I originally read your comment as asserting that the light rail corridor avoids 15-501 (which it does not). The light rail corridor does go along 15-501 for a significant distance. But I see now that your point is that it avoids 15-501 in Chapel Hill, which it does. I should have called that part of your comment ambiguous, rather than misleading. Sorry.Second, I am still not sure why you are attacking whatever consultants were involved in determining the proposed route. I still find it misleading to suggest that the route maximizes condemnation of land. First of all, why would anyone - anyone - want to maximize condemnation? Second, crossing the Army Corps of Engineers land reduces the amount of land that would need to be condemned. That land already belongs to the government.Third, I don't consider Glen Lennox "the periphery" of Chapel Hill. Fourth, when I buy goods at University Mall, I am the one who pays sales tax, not the store.
but the 1st point was "route in CH avoids 15-501", which is a true statement except for small piece of the bypass. Still seems more designed to meet the needs of Durham (residents and businesses) than CH/C, IMHO.
but brings people from Chapel Hill to Durham commercial areas, and we are supposed to tax ourselves so as to accomplishthis? Bad idea.
DF
It's true there are a lot more light rail stops in Durham than Orange, but Durham has both more employers and more residents, so it's only logical that they have more stops. Durham is also paying more for the system - a lot more. Besides, Orange employers depend on Durham residents; Durham employers depend on Orange residents.To say that the plan serves one county more than the other misses the point, which is that both counties need light rail and expanded regional bus service. The current proposal is a plan we can afford and which will serve the largest number of Orange County residents possible for the money.
Here's the mayor of Carrboro saying my comment "has a lot of misinformation" and later calls it "disingenuous at best." My reply was very specific on each point to disprove his assertion, but it is not being added to the thread.
Mr Chilton has a map of the proposed LRT route. His above statement is untrue. The LRT avoids all commerce on 15-501, and is mostly off and far away from 15-501 in Chapel Hill.
Chapel Hill commerce is supposed to collect the eventual sales tax to pay for this LRT plan which will not serve Chapel Hill commerce, but will serve Durham commerce and county.
Deborah Fulghieri
Commissioner Earl McKee and I both attended the annual meeting of the Eno River Association today, where Durham Commissioner Ellen Reckhow made a pitch for Orange Co. to get going on this. I followed Earl outside when he left for another event, and we had a productive conversation. I believe that he is investing some time and effort in learning about the potential benefits of this program. And it doesn't sound like he minds at all the prospect of "a packed room" (his term) on Tuesday night. Don't let him down! Ed Harrison
As a member of the technical team working on the proposed light rail project between Durham and Chapel Hill, I would like to add some background on why the light rail corridor has been recommended in the location described in the Detailed Definition of Alternatives document released by Triangle Transit in July 2011.First, regarding the question of why the rail proposal does not currently go beyond UNC Hospital to downtown Chapel Hill or Carrboro, the short answer is: “we cannot afford to fund it in the first phase of rail construction.” At this time, the financial capacity of the ½-cent sales tax in Orange County is not projected to be large enough to continue the line past UNC Hospital by 2035. On the plus side, the bus service operating in the South Columbia St corridor from Manning Drive to Franklin St and the West Franklin/East Main corridor between the two towns already generates passenger counts per mile of service carried by some American cities’ light rail systems. This means that in the 2035-2045 timeframe, or maybe sooner if sales tax growth outpaces projections, the rail extension will certainly have strong merit in terms of ridership. Second, on the question of the recommended alignment versus using 15-501/Fordham Blvd to access the UNC campus, there is a white paper that the technical team produced at the request of the Town of Chapel Hill addressing this question in the Nov 15th Orange County packet referenced by gercohen elsewhere in this thread. Here is the link again:http://www.co.orange.nc.us/occlerks/1111159a.pdfThe pages of interest on this question are 17 through 24. (Exhibit D)
The memo to which Patrick McDonough refers turns out to be very interesting, especially the Triangle Transit response to questions from Orange Co. staff (and, by extension, from Commissioners over time). I hope that concerned folks will give it a read, and then attend the Commissioners' discussion at their Tuesday evening meeting. This week's meeting is at the Southern Human Services Center at the usual starting time of 7 PM. Ed Harrison
I pulled the voter records from the state of all absentee ballots. Of the 4305 ballots cast in OC before election day, 3080 are from people who vote in the 29 precincts you mention (the ones I cared about as a CHCCS candidate).
Their decision not to schedule the vote in 2011 for this regional transit initiative is on my growing list* of failures of county leadership. I hope they will capitalize on the momentum of Durham's vote to scheduleour own referendum for the May 2012 primary.If not they will be providing fuel for potential challengers. It's enough to almost make me want to register as a Democrat. * Also includes not paying attention to Rogers Road until recently, off-base ideas about economic development, and generally not speaking about almost anything ever.