Learn more about transit

Alex doesn't own a home. He doesn't pay real estate taxes.

Katrina has noted "Alex doesn't own a home. He doesn't pay real estate taxes."

Therefore, I'll re-phrase my question to Alex:
Alex, "As someone who rides the bus and has ridden it safely at night, would you be interested in increasing night service, even if it costs taxpayers an additional 10% over what they already pay in transportation taxes?"

I should add to Ruby's comment that I shoould think it is safe to say that a portion of every renter's payment goes toward paying the landlord's property taxes so renters do pay property taxes, if only indirectly.

Carrboro has the some of the highest taxes in the state. It also has an appalling low ( 26%) rate of home ownership. People who never see a tax bill ( renters) are completely disconnected form the amount of money the town is spending and what services are provided for that money. I wonder how much value people would find in late night bus service if you said your rent will go by X dollars per year.

Somebody who knows that late night bus services is costing them $300 a year might vote much more conservatively that some one who just thinks “cool, free buses”.

Both sides are right on this issue of renters paying property taxes, I would submit. It is absolutely true that renters -- be they apartment dwellers or businesses -- pay property taxes through the renters collected by property owners. That is why it is false to say, as many politicians do, that "those people” who own little or no taxable property aren't paying taxes. They most certainly do. In fact, shoppers pay a portion of the property-tax bills of the retailers they frequent, too.

On the other hand, they don't know they are paying these taxes. They never see a bill or an annual accounting, akin to an income-tax form or a property-tax bill. As a matter of politics and public decisionmaking, this is a problem. Voters should have some sense of how much public services cost when deciding whether to retain, reduce, or increase them. I'm not sure that the answer is a more explicit, pass-through “renter's tax” as some suggest, but something kind of reform is needed.

Uh, make that “some kind of reform.” Itchy trigger finger. . .

The problem is Damon, you don't know the cost. Can you tell me how much of your rent goes for property taxes ?

I'm not impuning anyone's intelligence. I'm simply saying knowledge is power.

Well, this is getting a bit personal, isn't it? How nice.

For the record, while I do not own a home, my family does own property (which is in Chapel Hill). I do not have kids in the school system, do not use Chapel Hill's solid waste collection services, yet I cut a check for around $1800 for last year's city and county ad valorem taxes which includes the school district tax, and was happy to do so as my societal obligation. Moreover, everyone who owns a vehicle, whether they own or rent their domicile, does receive a tax bill, and must additionally pay a surcharge on one's motor vehicle registration fee that is dedicated to transit.

To elaborate a bit further on Ruby's point above, the typical financial model that makes owning rental property a workable business proposition is that the owner should realize some level of profit, or 'income', after expenses--- Hence the phrase, 'income property'. Typical expenses are the mortgage (principal+interest), upkeep, property management, insurance and taxes.

What this means, is that the tenants, in their rent, pay the mortgage(principal+ interest), upkeep, property management, insurance, taxes, AND a premium that is realized as profit, or 'income', by the property owner. All the while, the property owner is building equity (principal) and realizing---around here, at least---appreciation. Just what does the tenant get? The provision of a service.

Given the dynamic of this relationship, and the notion that seems to be in play here---that there should be a direct relationship between 'who pays', and interest in public policy and spending decisions---one might argue that the tenant, as the party who ultimately pays for all of these benefits, is the party whose interests should be given the greatest weight in public policy decisions in general, and more particularly, how those public funds should be spent.

Am I arguing that this should be the case in practice? Of course not. Why? Because such a practice is expressly prohibited by the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution---As is the notion that is curiously advanced from time to time, either directly or implied---that somehow property ownership entitles one to greater consideration in such matters.

So, unless someone is interested in mounting an effort to adopt a new constitutional amendment, all this discussion about who-pays-how-much-for-what is, for these purposes, moot.

Now, to go directly to George's question: I was not expressly advocating for additional late-night service. What I was pointing out was that the late night service that has been instituted thus far has provided real benefit to the community, and, IMHO, has been a worthwhile enterprise---Providing real value to citizens and the business community---As has our conversion to a Fare Free structure for reasons that Patrick has articulated exhaustively elsewhere. I would, however, given our experience thus far, be interested in evaluating the cost/benefit of adding such service. One can't put a hard number---Particularly one pulled out of a hat, like "10%"---at the front end of such an evaluation. Each route, or service expansion needs to be considered on it's individual merit, and value to the system, as a whole.

Cheers,
Alex

Alex,

For the record, I wasn't challenging your position - one way or another. I was interested in how you felt about late night service because you've actually used it. I will go on the record as I've previously done - I want to see us try the experiment. I think evening (not just late-night, mind you) service would be a success.
And Katrina, you stated "Somebody who knows that late night bus services is costing them $300 a year might vote much more conservatively that some one who just thinks “cool, free buses”.

If you check the previous posts, based on your dollar estimate for the average home value, a 10% increase for evening service would amount to an increase of $8.70, not the $300 you just suggested. Who's "Karl Roving" it now?

It is important that people realize that the buses AREN'T free. For awhile my kids (or their buddies) would refer to the buses as "free." DH and I always made a point of reminding them that the buses are FARE free because taxes paid the fares. We also made it clear that we think this is a GOOD use of our taxes.

In ancient times, I was a grad student at UNC living in rental property in Carrboro. (Would have lived in the dorm--but there wasn't room.) I took the J bus to school for classes,but to study at night I would drive. I think later hours for the buses is a good idea.

As to the "renters don'trealize they are paying taxes argument"--I think it's true for a number of renters. But then, how many of them VOTE? If one could run the numbers--I bet it would be a wash. And I bet the ones that DO vote know that a portion of their rent goes to taxes.

melanie

Mea culpe. I should have said "Alex does not directly pay taxes". I did , however, use the term "home" and not property.

While George's 1/2 cent increase wouldn't amount to $300 a year, it is entirely possibly that somebody renting a swanky downtown loft in Carrboro is paying $300 in rent for taxes.

For clarification, I never wrote, nor implicated, that people who don't "directly" pay property taxes shouldn't have a voice in community decisions. I pointed out that renters might vote differently if they knew the dollar amount various services were costing them. George's question, "Alex would you pay...", is unanswerable by a renter.

Here's an interesting sidebar on fare-free buses. Last
academic year, for the first time, there were a lot of
"For Rent" signs in our neighborhood (Westwood, just
south of campus and in walking distance). Now it's
August, UNC is about to start, and I've never seen so
many signs. These are not apartment complexes; they
are small time duplexes and accessory apartments
in larger homes. When I talk with the owners, they say
that their difficulty renting is caused by a number of
factors, including UNC dorm construction, that major
apartment complexes offer amenities (exercise
rooms, etc) and the easy-to-use fare-free bus system.
Living withi walking distance to campus is not the attraction that it used to be. Finally, the owners also say that attracting renters is very sensitive to the monthly rental.

Note here that I am NOT arguing againt the fare-free buses.
I use them and I love it.

Responding to Patrick's original statement:
I ride the bus five days a week from Southern Village to UNC Hospitals. I also ride from the Hospital to downtown when I have business, and from the Hospital to Meadowmont when my wife is working there. As I have written elsewhere, I had never had a bad experience with the bus system.

As you might expect, the day I wrote that fate grinned. My "V" bus from the Hospital to Meadowmont broke down, but there is no way of knowing this. Recently, the V route was changed, which results in all the buses running 5-10 minutes late. So, it wasn't until the bus was 15 minutes late that I called to find out what was going on, luckily I had a route book with the number to call. They assured me the next bus would be by shortly. A half-hour later my wife was wondering why I was late to pick up the kids (she kept them at her work) and I had been standing in the 100 degree heat for an hour.

I called and asked where the bus was and why they were running a number of NS buses AND the NS Express, when people were probabaly waiting all over town for the V. I was told that was a good point, but that the dispatcher didn't have the authority to change the buses. So, who does?

Anyway, now that I have calmed (and cooled) down, I still stand by my analysis that the bus system is good. But, they could have better backup in case of breakdown.

I'm also a frequent V-bus user. On August 1st, I almost
missed the bus at the Student Union because it was
four minutes early, so I thought. The driver saw me
hustling and waited for me (bless his soul) and I said that
I thought that he was early. But I was wrong; the
schedule and the eastbound route changed. Personally
I'm not happy with the route change because it lengthens
my trip home by 10 minutes by visiting the DeanDome
and the new Married Student Housing, but before I complain I want to see how it performs once school starts.

From the "Deja vue all over again department":
Gary Barnes, who is on the T-board told me that some
residents of Meadowmont are now objecting to the
bus in their neighborhood, exactly as some Southern
Village residents did about two years ago. But
supposedly the Meadowmont people are a little more
feisty, specifically parking their cars so that the bus
cannot pass, and one guy actually came out and
kicked the bus. (Maybe he should have just sent the bus
to its room without dinner.)

Robert Peterson:
I suggest you contact Kurt Neufang at Chapel Hill Transit regarding your recent experience with the V-bus breakdown. His e-mail is kneufang@townofchapelhill.org
He can tell you, at least, whether everything was done that could have been done and, if so, he can initiate a process to insure that CHT can improve their responses.

The Meadowmont bus barely passed through there until the route change! The change in SV and MM is designed to allow residents to take the bus from the square OUT to their houses, so I have heard. Who would object to a bus passing through their neighborhood? Unless it was flying through local streets where kids play.

In the SV case, the people who objected did so on the grounds
that you would expect: "Dangerous for the kids", "Unnecessary
to run empty buses thru the streets", "We don't use it and don't
want to pay for it", "Buses are noisy and polluting", "Buses
are too big for our narrow streets",
"I work at RTP, so a bus to UNC doesn't help me" etc, etc,
etc.

The council rejected their arguments, correctly so in my
opinion, noting that SV was designed,
town-approved, and built as a high-density neighborhood,
specifically located and organized so to be easily served
by mass transit. The objectors weren't accepting that
concept, even though they bought their houses there.

I assume that the MM objectors feel the same way,
except that their stakes are higher because
their homes are more expensive.

I remember 20 years ago when the Burke-Gilman
recreational bike trail was built through Seattle, that many
homeowners objected because they felt that their property
values would decrease and crime would increase
because criminals could have easier access to their homes and to get away more quickly. Then studies showed that the values of homes on the trail actually increased and there was no increase in crime. Real estate ads in Seattle now
boldly advertise that homes are on the trail.

Are there any studies that show
that home values go up (or down) as a function of a
nearby bus stop?

Joe,

There are two very large studies going on right now that address that question in Houston and in Ohio. The most recent study I've found, authored by a professor Litman studying the Portland area ( 2004) has some pretty fuzzy conclusions. Propert values near transit tend to increase, but only if there is a " latent need for transit". On the other hand, single family residences right next to transit tend to suffer. It's called a LULU ( locally undesirable land use). So, in short, people who want to use public transit want it close, but not in their yard. The Litman study showed that the maximum benefit was to properties about two blocks from the transit stops.

Well, I just want to be honest here and say I dont like the bus coming up my street because it was a quiet street. I sit on my porch a lot and now every 30 minutes or so, a noisy bus comes by. When I bought my house here no one said there would be a bus coming by my house, in fact I even asked and no one said anything. Im not worried about high crime or any of that, I have a Smith & Wesson to take care of that, I just want my quiet little street back.

John and others,
It would seem to me that the bus routes should run in such a way that "quiet" little streets wouldn't be effected. I would imagine they run on the busiest street within each neighborhood. Perhaps the difference is perceived traffic because the buses are much louder.

One reminder here about who pays for CHT: it's not just property owners (or renters, however you want to think about it). UNC students voted to increase their student fees to directly support free far buses, and they must re-vote on this every few years. So those pesky renters who are also students, are, in fact, already supporting the bus. We students who are also property owners are supporting it twice.

Katrina, I'm a bit confused about your comment about property owners versus renters, because my understanding is that you are not currently a property owner, but a renter, in Carrboro.

Yes, Joan, you are correct. I am renting an apartment in Carrboro, but of course, it has been well noted that my husband and I own a home that will be taxed by Carrboro as of January 2006.
And while students voted to increase their student fees, the University is, of course, subsidised by my state income taxes, and most students fees are paid in part, by federal loans and federal grants, which are subsidised by my federal taxes, while full time students, by in large, are exempt from income taxes. So while I appreciate their vote, that also seems to increase my investment in the transit system.

I'm not certain what is confusing about my statement that renters typically don't know what portion of their rent is for taxes. The value of something can only be determined when we know it's price.

My apologies for my week long absence (but perhaps I am assuming too much in imagining that I was missed). I was out of town last week. Let me address a couple of issues on this thread from the last week:

When I rented in Chapel Hill in the late 80's and early 90's, my landlord sent me a letter every year informing me that my rent was being raised for the next year because of increasing costs, specifically from taxes. I bet that is not a unique experience.

Seems like the Crime and Transit argument has gotten the thorough debunking that it deserves. If there is evidence to the contrary, then let's see it. To my knowledge, there is one bus stop in Carrboro that has had excessive crime issues, but there is no evidence that this has to do with the fact that it is a bus stop. Nor does it have anything to do with the bus schedule as far as I am aware. So let's put the burden on Katrina to come forward with whatever information she may have about this matter.

Katrina,

I want to agree that if renters don't know that part of their rent is paid to landlords to offset taxes, then they might not be good arbiters of transit policies.

On the other hand, I'm a renter, I possess this knowledge, and I doubt if I am an exception.

In fact, I doubt people who come to live here (students or not) would merely chalk up their higher-than-normal rents to college town economics or a dearth in rental property.

Besides, this seems to be an intuitively self-regulating system: college students who don't care about local politics aren't likely to be voting or voicing their opinions on transit policies.

But even if renters do become active transit policy activists and somehow remain ignorant of their tax contrbutions, they remain marketplace participants by virtue of their monthly rental payments. When I say this I'm not speaking to the obvious normative argument that they should be allowed to be participants, nor to the obvious factual statement that they have the right or political ability to be participants. Rather, I am stating the economic reality that since they carry the same tax burden as a home owner (relatively speaking) that they have constructive notice of tax implications, and have internalized this information into their budgets. Anything a renter might have to say about municipal issues emanates from this economic platform.

Katrina, you stated:
"And while students voted to increase their student fees, the University is, of course, subsidised by my state income taxes, and most students fees are paid in part, by federal loans and federal grants, which are subsidised by my federal taxes, while full time students, by in large, are exempt from income taxes. So while I appreciate their vote, that also seems to increase my investment in the transit system."

Please tell me the dollar amounts of your state income taxes and federal income taxes that are going to subsidize student fees at UNC-CH, and the percentage of those subsidized student fees that are going toward supporting CHT. I will gladly reimburse you for those amounts when you start paying transportation taxes in Carrboro next year because I really feel terrible that you will be cheated by the system since you obviously have no need for CHT.

Okay...I spent a good deal of time this morning "checking my sources".

I was only able to speak to the Lt. and not the other two Carrboro police officers I referred to earlier. He preferred the term "trouble" to "crime" describing his position on buses, bus stops etc... to quote directly " We have a lot of trouble because of the buses. If I got a vote, buses would stop at about 7PM". I should mention that in my original conversation with these officers was to ask what their challenges were, and how could elected officials help.

It's move in time in my apartment complex, so I decided to poll my fellow renters. ( Average rent in Carrboro is listed at $604, and mine is $614, so this seems like a pretty good complex to get an average sample)

I asked 12 people the following question:

Do you know how much of your rent goes toward property taxes ?
Do you ride the bus more than twice a week ?
Was proximity to the bus lines ( we have bus routes on either side of the complex) a factor in your decison where to rent?
Are you a student?
How much more would you pay in rent to have late night bus service to downtown? ( the choices being$0, $5,$10, $20)

The answers are :

1- No - 10, about $50-1, about $200 -1
2- No-8 Yes-4
3- No-6, Yes -5, "Who needs a bus, the ABC store is right next door? " -1
4- No-4, Yes-8
5- $0- 10, $5-2

So, just to follow up, I walked over to the complex office and asked. "How much of the rent is used to pay property taxes?" Not one of the four members of the staff new or wanted to guess.

So based on my totally unscientific poll, I think most renters don't have an idea what the cost implications of new, higher taxes would be, and that even in a mostly student population, the idea of adding service to downtown at night isn't in high demand. And that doesn't included more suburban neighborhoods which use transit at an exponetially lower rate.

And George, to get back to your point. I fully support the free bus system. I think it's a great idea. I do think, however, that it's primary function is to deliver people to and from the university. The benefits to the towns are ancillary. If we want to look at public transportation for our area, I think we need to be focused on smaller buses going to a greater variety of destinations, rather than just extending the hours of the system and routes we already have.

Katrina,
I also initially liked the idea of smaller buses but the staff at CHT explained to me that: (1) the smaller buses are less comfortable (suspensions are not as "beefed up"; (2) the smaller buses wear out sooner (not built as well); (3) the smaller buses might not handle our hills as well (especially in inclement weather); and (4) the smaller buses often don't give you flexibility regarding capacity (i.e., can't be put into service when a larger bus breaks down; when a route is running over capacity; or when you want to expand service). Thus, for a number of reasons the larger buses are more cost-effective in the long-run, particularly if you might want to expand service down the line somewhere.

I believe that there will be increased demand for bus service in our suburban areas in the future. CHT has had a number of requests for increased service in the ECHHS-Erwin Road area and several of your neighbors out in the Highlands have requested CHT service to that area over the last several years. Unfortunately, there haven't been sufficient funds to expand service in the ECHHS-Erwin Road area and the Highlands (and other areas in that vicinity) have been outside the CHT service area. Now that some of those areas are being annexed by Carrboro, it would be up to Carrboro to propose new service to those locations.
On the news this morning it was reported that gasoline has gone up $0.70/gal in this region in the last year. Even if you are generous and assume that their cars get 24 miles/gal, the average two-car family is spending $700/yr more for gas this year than last year. If these cost increases continue (and even if they merely stabilize) I suspect that some people will begin to look seriously at using CHT if at all possible.

I wonder how many home owners know what portion of their taxes are used for bus service? How many of the individuals you spoke with Katrina, lived here last year? How many need to be on campus at night? Bus riding is a habit; most of the people on the buses I ride are regulars. Your questions conflated the bus ridership habit and nighttime use. If you want to really understand the demand for night time routes, I would suggest you go to campus at 8:00 pm mid-September and ask your questions of those have need of night time transportation. Be sure to distinguish responses by frequent bus riders and irregular/non-bus riders. As someone who frequently got caught between campus and the park and ride (my route ended at 7:30), I think some alternative needs to be found. Academia simply isn't a 9:00 - 5:00 profession.

Terri,

I would suggest that your comments about the need for later buses "to and from campus" illustrate my point that the primary function of transit right now is to deliver people to and from the University.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought George's proposal was intended to expand ridership into the non-university population. If that is the intent, then I think some more flexible routes and modes of transport need to be looked at, staff reccommendations aside.

If more transport is needed to service campus, then the monetary burdened should be shouldered in large part by the University, not by additional taxes on Chapel Hill-Carrboro.

Katrina, Terri:
My proposal was indeed to increase the CH tax rate to fund additional nightime service for routes proposed by the town (since they would be funding such new service). Obviously, University employees and students would be free to use such routes as well (I would assume that many or all of the new routes would cover areas in which students and/or employees[faculty or staff] might live. The University (from student funds) has already funded some late night service in terms of the "safe ride" program that operates 3 routes.
While I agree with Katrina that service that appears to directly benefit only the University should be shouldered by them (such as service to/from the new UNC park and ride lot on 15-501 in Chatham county), I do not automatically assume that services that benefit UNC cannot also be beneficial to CH or Carrboro. The towns get a lot of value from the University and we need to insure that all of our needs are met as we grow. I'd be happy to have someone ask the University to contribute toward increased night-time service and we could then cut my proposed 1/2 cent increase in the transportation tax by 30-50%.

George, my take is that extended hours to a park-and-ride lot in Chatham County (to use your example) would also benefit Chatham County and their residents. Why not ask the county to chip in?

Katrina, many of the arguments here for late night service have been made on behalf of residents who would like to get to dinner (and perhaps drinks) without driving downtown (and fewer students parking at night would free up other spaces downtown for diners, shoppers, etc). There's a bigger picture here.

Later service would also benefit folks who work in food service, for example. I often see folks traveling from Carrboro to U Mall or back, and not getting off downtown. But it seems to me you're not really interested in new information or facts--you've made up your mind and that's that. Am I right?

Joan,
You have just hit on a wonderful point. Living in SV, if we could catch the NS bus at 7pm to downtown, have dinner and a cup of coffee and then catch the bus home at a reasonable hour (say 10:30), we would do it several times a month.

Not at all, Joan. I would support expanding transit hours if we could substantiate the "latent need" for late night service. I haven't heard it. I'm willing to listen to everybody. If I were looking at a petition from 1,000 residents that requested additional buses, I'd be inclined to vote for it.

Since people at the EPA tell me that oil may very well hit $95 a barrel early next year, I'm not inclined to send a bunch of sparsley populated buses belching deisel fumes down the roads on the " if we build it they will come" theory. It's bad economic and ecologic policy.

Looks like you've got your first signature, Joan.

Katrina,

Our buses belch kerosene fumes - cleaner than diesel but not as clean as biodiesel (but biodiesel is still too expensive and the supplies are unreliable). Unfortunately, hybrid buses are not affordable yet but if they were we could eliminate the noise issue that several people have raised (although you then introduce a safety issue because pedestrians don't hear them coming).

One of you T-board members correct me if I am wrong, but
every time that CHT has tried a route that wasn't part of the
hub and spoke system that serves UNC commuters, its ridership was so poor that it could not be continued. I remember the cross-town route from Univ Mall to Carrboro, created in part to
help lower-income people who did not work for UNC.
In spite of advertising, the ridership was so poor that it had
to be discontinued. What is the ridership on the route
from Franklin St. out to CHHS? Will this route remain or fail?
Similarly, it's easy to say that we should
just extend the hours on some routes. But to do it, there
has to be solid, reliable ridership, or it fails economically
and must be terminated.

Carrboro (like any of the CHT partners) of course can propose any route they choose --
but they must pay for it for one year, and the alderman
up to now have been reluctant to put up the bucks.

Joe,
I wouldn't propose initially trying this experiment (evening service) on a route that didn't serve both UNC students and employees and non-UNC citizens as well. If it had good ridership you could then do a ridership survey to determine how many of the riders were not UNC connected and how far they were walking to catch the bus. That information could then be used to decide if and where you might expand the service beyond these intial test routes.
Like Robert Peterson, I'd love to be able to take our bus (the T-route) downtown at night, have dinner, and take it home again. Unfortunately, the schedule for the evening hours is really spaced out. My wife and I tried it for an early dinner one Friday and it worked great but I'm not into the early-bird specials yet.

GeorgeC these local folk are working hard to create an adequate local supply of biodiesel. Macro-economic and geo-political conditions might make their supply quite cost competitive with kerosene/diesel.

JoeC, considering the changing landscape of Chapel Hill, it seems like reattempting a route running from Eastgate to Chapel Hill/North-Timberlyne to Carrboro to Downtown (generally following the periphery) might be successful if run in a timely matter during peak hours. Sometimes it's difficult to make the leap of faith (and expenditure of $$$) on an unknown. Does servicing the periphery with a dedicated route make sense?

WillR
I know that the local folk are working hard to create an adequate supply of biodiesel but my understanding is that you have to adjust the engines to run on the biodiesel and, if the supply drys up unexpectedly, it wouldn't be easy to switch the engines back quickly. Duke Transit runs on biodiesel so there is a supply demand that they generate which one has to consider. Can you imagine what would happen to UNC functions if CHT unexpectedly couldn't get enough biodiesel? I think it's a great idea but I think the supply infrastructure needs to be firmed up.

I was only able to speak to the Lt. and not the other two Carrboro police officers I referred to earlier. He preferred the term “trouble” to “crime” describing his position on buses, bus stops etc… to quote directly ” We have a lot of trouble because of the buses. If I got a vote, buses would stop at about 7PM”. I should mention that in my original conversation with these officers was to ask what their challenges were, and how could elected officials help.

Does this lieutenant read this forum? I'd love to talk to him, and if he/she is reading, I would encourage them to post. I'm familiar with crime prevention techniques that other transit agencies around the country use to combat certain types of problems, and if this is indeed an issue, I could probably dig up some stuff that might help.

In the meantime, here are the current "out of service" times for all buses serving Carrboro from http://www.chtransit.org/.

CW 6:32 P.M.
D 6:38 P.M.
CPX 6:55 P.M.
CM 7:47 P.M.
J 7:56 P.M.
JFX 8:05 P.M.
F 8:32 P.M.

Does this mean that all of the current (summertime, not regular school year) bus "trouble" is highly
concentrated on the CM, J, JFX, and F routes between 7:00 and 8:32 P.M.?

Furthermore, what constitutes "trouble," and why is it clear that the bus service contributes to the problem?

On another note, I'd be interested to hear more about WIllR and David Marshall have to say about their vision for transit.

I find this thread fascinating. The only time I ride the Chapel Hill buses is when my kids are looking for a diversion.

Yet this is a larger conversation, about moving the public around.

Some want a lift home from the bars, some think their kids deserve better than a ride on the bus, and others are outraged by escalating fuel costs.

Would it be worth questioning what powers the buses? I'm assuming it's a diesel fleet, and I've heard talk of some kerosene in the mix, but wouldn't the public be better served by reducing its dependency on polluting fossil fuels? Why not move the buses to biodiesel?

hmm, wonder whether the correlation with "crime" on the buses in the evening if because that is when crime predominates anyway. Perhaps we should also close stores at 7 pm. Stop serving liquor at 7 pm too.

George,

No engine modification is required. Simply fill up with biodiesel and run. If supply runs short, simply fill up with petroleum and run. Biodiesel and diesel are interchangable.

I don't think it is realistic to try and categorize anyone in this town as JUST university. I was a University employee, but I am also a resident. Therefore, after work when I wanted to go downtown for dinner or a movie, I had to ride the bus back to SV, pick up my car and drive into town, park and drive home. Or if I missed the 7:00 pm bus home, I had to beg a ride back to SV from someone. If mass transit is to be institutionalized it has to flexibly meet the needs of the majority of the citizens. And in this area, the majority of the citizens are affiliated in some way with the university. So in additional to running later at night, I would also like to see the buses run every 20-30 minutes throughout the day for parents who need to get to their kids schools; for intown workers to get to MD appointments, etc. (keeping in mind that most of us get 1 hour for lunch and extra comes from vacation, sick or comp time).

Patrick,

Thank you for the invitation to comment.

Let's make it brief; I believe that:

1. Mass transit does not contribute to crime.

2. Buses, especially when efficiently run, regardless of what they are burning for fuel, are net savers of fuel and the environment.

3. Most people, if they knew the pros and cons of buses would think that their use is not only a good idea, but also should be expanded.

4. There are instances when efficiency is not the only criteria for the use of buses. Running late night buses are an example. If we keep one inebriated person off the streets per week then it has paid for itself. Maybe not in dollars and cents, but in life and limb. Maybe my uncle would still be around if such thinking existed.

5. Soon we will all be riding buses.

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/

6. Buses are great crucibles for the experimentation of new fuel technologies. Gosh, I would like to ride a fuel cell bus.

http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0501/14/autos-60181.htm

7. Renters know what they are paying for. That was built-in to their decision to live in town rather than cheaper dwellings in Chatham, Alamance, or Durham counties. Also, there is a greater chance that a bus rider is a renter than a property owner.

8. The efficiency of buses can be quantitatively maximized. Matrix algebra, data envelopment analysis, combinatorial optimization, discrete mathematics, non-linear programming, stochastic systems, and, of course, good old common sense. All these geniuses in our backyard and we can't put them to good use?

Oops, I promised to be brief

Lyle Estill,
I believe that you're correct that an engine running on diesel needs no modifications to run on biodiesel. But the CHT buses have been set up to run on kerosene (cleaner than diesel) and thus I believe they would have to be re-modified to run again on either diesel or biodiesel. It certainly might be possible to initially convert only some of CHT's buses to biodiesel if the long-term supply issue is a concern. This is an topic that might be broached with CHT and the Town as they are outfitting the TOC with its storage facilities.

Terri,
The kind of bus system you described is exactly what I would like to see. My suggestion for first expanding service at night was based on (1) we would not need to acquire additional capital equipment to expand at night, (2) citizens who work outside of Chapel Hill during the day would have the opportunity at night to see how useful a good bus service can be, and (3) as more citizens use and begin to appreciate the value of the system it becomes easier to justify the cost of the required new equipment necessary to expand service to include 15-20 minutes headways during the day. From your post it sounds like Robert and I might have another signature on the petition.