Category: Charlotte

Hey Dems, we do have indoor plumbing

Observer staff photo (May 18,2010) by David T. Foster III

I’m already hearing from out of town friends about their plans to come to Charlotte for the Democratic National Convention. A pal who runs the BBC’s North America bureau sent word that the BBC had already booked 50 rooms. Then he e-mailed back that “the city have told all hotels not to take bookings…..12 thousand rooms…..” Word is the DNC controls hotel room allotments. I wonder if that means we should clean the junk out of our guest rooms and pick up some income from less-well-funded members of the world’s news media.

I’ve been trying to think of what to tell our global visitors they should expect in the Queen City. You know many will arrive imagining the usual stereotypes of The South – unpainted shacks, no indoor plumbing, cousins marrying cousins, overseers and sharecroppers visible in every cotton field, mules hauling cotton to the cotton gin, hellfire and brimstone preachers thumping Bibles on every corner. You get the picture.

Do they realize:

• That Charlotte is a hotbed of Presbyterianism? (Don’t you love seeing “hotbed” and “Presbyterian” in the same sentence?) Sure, there are places where people rock ‘n’ roll and even dance, but you’ll rarely see a local elected or business official cutting the rug or belting a show tune after too many beers.

• That when our civic leadership encounters a problem, the first instinct is to form a large and interminably meeting committee to talk it over?

• That not only do our civic leaders not care about the Confederacy, or even mention it in public, they don’t even mention the past of 20 years ago. Visitors hear much about our banks, and probably get a banking genealogy worthy of the Old Testament. Commercial National and Southern States Trust (aka American Trust ) begat American Commercial, which begat North Carolina National Bank which began NCNB (No Cash for No Body, is the local joke) and NCNB begat NationsBank, and NationsBank begat Bank of America, with many side deals along the way.

But I bet they won’t hear that this Banktown stuff is rather new. For a now barely mentioned century or so, Charlotte was a textile town, with company-owned mill villages and impoverished and uneducated mill workers.

• That despite Michelle Obama’s gracious praise, and despite North Carolina’s sitting at the acme of all barbecue cultures in the nation (take THAT, Texas!), Charlotte does not boast truly excellent barbecue joints – the kind of old cinder-block building with stacks of hickory wood and smoke coming out the back where you can get the most flavorful, juiciest, crispy-edged barbecue. For that you have to drive to Lexington (if you like Lexington style) or Shelby (if you like Western style) or east of Raleigh (if you like Eastern style). Best ‘cue I’ve had in Charlotte recently was at the Sharon United Methodist Church Boy Scout troop’s annual January barbecue.

Here’s as good a description as I’ve seen of Charlotte, courtesy of a commenter on the Huffington Post article about Charlotte being chosen for the convention [I’ve added some punctuation corrections]:

“Good luck here in Charlotte (my hometown), Mr. President. It’s a pleasure to have you coming to the Queen City. Strange things happen in the Carolinas, though. Nothing or no one here is ever what they seem to be. See that farmer over there in the overalls? He’s a billionair­e. See the banker-looking guy with the tassles on his shoes? He’s bankrupt – again. See all of those folks out front there in the audience smiling? Half of them are from S.C.”

And this tidbit: My Google search to see what the BBC was saying about Charlotte found the website of the Bible Believers Chapel on Lancaster Highway in south Charlotte. No, I am not making that up.

Finally, here’s a skyline photo roundup of dated skyline shots:

• The Washington Post online article shows the Time Warner Cable Arena (site of the actual convention), which opened in 2005, STILL UNDER CONSTRUCTION!

• Politico.com’s piece shows an artsy, night-time shot with a construction crane that I’m pretty sure isn’t there any more.

• And while looking for Huffington Post coverage, I stumbled on this not-so-cheery story of the “13 surprising cities where foreclosures are soaring,” with Charlotte listed at No. 4. It, too, has the arena-under-construction photo. Geez.

Historic streetcar – an expose of sorts

Historic streetcar rail exposed on North Tryon Street. Photos by Mary Newsom

This posting is an excuse to share some photos that history enthusiasts and rail-lovers might enjoy. Pavement flaws in North Tryon Street uptown have exposed the reality that the city’s old streetcar tracks are still down there. Here’s a hat tip to Les Epperson of the city’s Special Services division, which cares for some key parts of uptown. When I was interviewing him about sidewalks and snow removal (see last Saturday’s op-ed, “City walkability goal hits an icy patch”), he mentioned that streetcar rails were visible where the pavement was worn, in the 500 block of North Tryon. I took a walk last week and sure enough, in front of the First United Methodist Church, I spotted them.
The rails aren’t in very good condition – not surprising for metal that’s been paved over multiple times. Epperson said not all the rails remain; some have been removed for various street projects.

For the record, Charlotte’s last streetcar was put out to pasture in 1938. Streetcar No. 85 was the centerpiece of a “Good-bye To Trolleys” celebration at The Square on March 14, 1938. That car ended up being found in a Huntersville pasture in the 1980s, restored and then it ran for about 10 years, operated by the nonprofit Charlotte Trolley, on what are now the light rail tracks down South Boulevard. It was put out to pasture again – this time to the CATS light rail barn – and awaits its next mission.
Charlotte, like many other U.S. cities, hopes to bring back streetcar service, but its plans don’t include North Tryon Street. Still, I like to imagine someone jackhammering up the asphalt on North Tryon and Car 85 running on those old rails again. In reality, of course, the condition of the rail (see close-ups below) and the missing rails make that impossible.

Historic streetcar – an expose of sorts

Historic streetcar rail exposed on North Tryon Street. Photos by Mary Newsom

This posting is an excuse to share some photos that history enthusiasts and rail-lovers might enjoy. Pavement flaws in North Tryon Street uptown have exposed the reality that the city’s old streetcar tracks are still down there. Here’s a hat tip to Les Epperson of the city’s Special Services division, which cares for some key parts of uptown. When I was interviewing him about sidewalks and snow removal (see last Saturday’s op-ed, “City walkability goal hits an icy patch”), he mentioned that streetcar rails were visible where the pavement was worn, in the 500 block of North Tryon. I took a walk last week and sure enough, in front of the First United Methodist Church, I spotted them.
The rails aren’t in very good condition – not surprising for metal that’s been paved over multiple times. Epperson said not all the rails remain; some have been removed for various street projects.

For the record, Charlotte’s last streetcar was put out to pasture in 1938. Streetcar No. 85 was the centerpiece of a “Good-bye To Trolleys” celebration at The Square on March 14, 1938. That car ended up being found in a Huntersville pasture in the 1980s, restored and then it ran for about 10 years, operated by the nonprofit Charlotte Trolley, on what are now the light rail tracks down South Boulevard. It was put out to pasture again – this time to the CATS light rail barn – and awaits its next mission.
Charlotte, like many other U.S. cities, hopes to bring back streetcar service, but its plans don’t include North Tryon Street. Still, I like to imagine someone jackhammering up the asphalt on North Tryon and Car 85 running on those old rails again. In reality, of course, the condition of the rail (see close-ups below) and the missing rails make that impossible.

Threats to historic buildings – from the government

The owner of the landmark P&N Railway Depot (above) wants to demolish it rather than meet city’s code demands.

You may have read the op-ed I did in November (“City may seek landmark demolition”), pointing to an unintended consequence of the city’s new non-residential building code – several demolition orders going out to designated historic landmarks that weren’t in good repair.

Or maybe you caught the WFAE report last week on the Davis General Merchandise store, a century old historic landmark which has been ordered to make repairs, and whose aging outbuildings were ordered demolished if repairs weren’t made.

Yes, this is yet another example of your city government and city elected officials being oblivious to the value of old buildings and historic buildings – and not just landmarks – when they adopt city policy. They’re not necessarily hostile, just oblivious to the issue. Witness the happy ease with which planners and council members adopted zoning standards for transit-station areas that allow buildings so tall they’ll alter the property value landscape, making smaller older buildings in places such as NoDa worth so little compared to the land they’re on that owners won’t even blink before razing them for towers.

As today’s Observer editorial (“Historic landmarks? City turns blind eye”) points out, City Council members say they didn’t even discuss, when talking about the proposed ordinance last spring, what its effect might be on historic buildings. That’s telling.

Walter Abernethy, the city’s code enforcement director, says the issue did come up during stakeholder meetings before the ordinance was proposed. But the ordinance has little in it to protect landmark buildings.

Ted Alexander, with Preservation North Carolina, points out that PNC has covenants on the Davis store to protect it – though whether that could prevent demolition is, for now, an open question. (I’ve asked Ted but haven’t heard back yet.) And it’s important to remember that the city hasn’t ordered demolition of the store and isn’t pushing for it. It just wants repairs, which owner Silas Davis would have to pay for. Davis, when I talked to him Friday, was irate about the whole situation and said he didn’t have the money for the repairs.

But as the editorial points out, it’s the historic old Thrift depot that faces the more immediate threat. Its owner, CSX railway, would prefer not to spend what it would require to bring the building up to code. It’s asking for a demolition permit. Because it’s a landmark, the county historic landmarks commission can delay the demo for up to a year, but can’t prevent demolition.

A few N.C. municipalities have gotten special legislation to let them absolutely forbid demolition in some selected cases. New Bern, for instance, can forbid demolition in its historic districts, although there are some procedural hoops everyone has to jump through.

Is the city’s oblivion toward historic landmarks due in part to the governmental organization that has the landmarks commission lodged as part of the county government? Possibly. But notice that the Historic District Commission (not the same as the landmarks commission but with some similarities), is part of the city’s planning department.

Threats to historic buildings – from the government

The owner of the landmark P&N Railway Depot (above) wants to demolish it rather than meet city’s code demands.

You may have read the op-ed I did in November (“City may seek landmark demolition”), pointing to an unintended consequence of the city’s new non-residential building code – several demolition orders going out to designated historic landmarks that weren’t in good repair.

Or maybe you caught the WFAE report last week on the Davis General Merchandise store, a century old historic landmark which has been ordered to make repairs, and whose aging outbuildings were ordered demolished if repairs weren’t made.

Yes, this is yet another example of your city government and city elected officials being oblivious to the value of old buildings and historic buildings – and not just landmarks – when they adopt city policy. They’re not necessarily hostile, just oblivious to the issue. Witness the happy ease with which planners and council members adopted zoning standards for transit-station areas that allow buildings so tall they’ll alter the property value landscape, making smaller older buildings in places such as NoDa worth so little compared to the land they’re on that owners won’t even blink before razing them for towers.

As today’s Observer editorial (“Historic landmarks? City turns blind eye”) points out, City Council members say they didn’t even discuss, when talking about the proposed ordinance last spring, what its effect might be on historic buildings. That’s telling.

Walter Abernethy, the city’s code enforcement director, says the issue did come up during stakeholder meetings before the ordinance was proposed. But the ordinance has little in it to protect landmark buildings.

Ted Alexander, with Preservation North Carolina, points out that PNC has covenants on the Davis store to protect it – though whether that could prevent demolition is, for now, an open question. (I’ve asked Ted but haven’t heard back yet.) And it’s important to remember that the city hasn’t ordered demolition of the store and isn’t pushing for it. It just wants repairs, which owner Silas Davis would have to pay for. Davis, when I talked to him Friday, was irate about the whole situation and said he didn’t have the money for the repairs.

But as the editorial points out, it’s the historic old Thrift depot that faces the more immediate threat. Its owner, CSX railway, would prefer not to spend what it would require to bring the building up to code. It’s asking for a demolition permit. Because it’s a landmark, the county historic landmarks commission can delay the demo for up to a year, but can’t prevent demolition.

A few N.C. municipalities have gotten special legislation to let them absolutely forbid demolition in some selected cases. New Bern, for instance, can forbid demolition in its historic districts, although there are some procedural hoops everyone has to jump through.

Is the city’s oblivion toward historic landmarks due in part to the governmental organization that has the landmarks commission lodged as part of the county government? Possibly. But notice that the Historic District Commission (not the same as the landmarks commission but with some similarities), is part of the city’s planning department.

HOT proposal for Indy Blvd should spark some heat


Forget putting light rail transit down the middle of Independence Boulevard, and instead put bus rapid transit on high-occupancy-vehicle lanes already planned. Send a streetcar down Monroe Road. And convince the state to move its Regional Farmers Market to some of the vacant properties on Independence.

Yep, I think the recommendations this morning from a panel from the nonprofit Urban Land Institute will prompt some talk.

“My eyes lit up at the options,” was the reaction from Carolyn Flowers, chief of the Charlotte Area Transit System. Even before the panel presentation had wound down, she was emailing to see if a presentation could be made to the Metropolitan Transit Commission, CATS’ governing body, next month.

Her eyes lit up because the transit recommendation for Independence would, in essence, mean the state builds that Indy Boulevard transit line, and all cash-strapped CATS would have to find is money to buy buses and other equipment and to pay drivers. The ULI panel recommendation would even mean cost savings for the N.C. Department of Transportation for its long-planned Independence Boulevard widening project.

That’s because the current plans to widen Indy Boulevard – a project for which there is at present no money in the state’s five-year plan, but which is likely to get funded at some point later – call for a 52-foot center section to be reserved for a future CATS transit project – maybe light rail (LRT), maybe bus rapid transit (BRT); the MTC still has to decide. If you eliminate that 52-foot section but still build the planned HOT/HOV lanes, you could run BRT or express buses in the HOT lanes (and remember T=toll=revenue stream), and still need a narrower overall corridor, i.e. less money needed to buy right-of-way.

NCDOT secretary Gene Conti was part of the panel, so I’m assuming he’d have scotched recommendations that were thoroughly unworkable from NCDOT’s point of view.

But …..

East Charlotte residents have spent years pushing for light rail transit, not bus, along Independence. They know LRT in general attracts more development than bus transit, because the rail means the route won’t get switched, unlike a less permanent bus route. How will this new idea go over with them? Will the suggested addition of a streetcar along Monroe Road be enough of an inducement?

Several ULI panel members, from cities such as Houston, Denver and New York, all sang variations on this theme: Putting light rail along a limited-access, high-speed and high-volume highway like Independence won’t attract much development. That’s been a lesson from Denver’s light rail, which runs next to a freeway, they said. “Nodes [neighborhood centers] on high-speed corridors do not work,” said Carlton Brown, an economic development expert with Full Spectrum, a development firm in New York and Jackson, Miss.

So, they say, plan to put rail along the smaller commercial corridors where it does have a chance to attract transit-oriented redevelopment: Central Avenue and Monroe Road. Of course, no one had concrete proposals for how to find revenue to build even the Central Avenue streetcar, much less adding another. Their suggestions: Get creative. Build in phases. Find a benefactor, like Bill Gates helping the Seattle-to-Tacoma line. That led to a quip from an elected official in the audience – whom I’ll not name, and so this person owes me one – about the “Leon and Sandra Levine Line.” After all, the Family Dollar headquarters is right on Monroe …

I was sitting next to East Charlotte activist Susan Lindsay. Her immediate reaction was that she wanted to know more before coming to a conclusion about whether to support or oppose the suggestions. But since the MTC lacks money for any transit of any form down Independence – or for any streetcars, any West Charlotte transit, or even enough money to extend the one light rail line past UNC Charlotte – a proposal that might allow rapid transit there in our lifetimes could just win some support.

Note: The ULI panel’s recommendations are simply that – ideas from a group of experts from around the country. They don’t supersede any existing plans or change any priorities.

Photo: Streetcar in Portland, Ore.

HOT proposal for Indy Blvd should spark some heat


Forget putting light rail transit down the middle of Independence Boulevard, and instead put bus rapid transit on high-occupancy-vehicle lanes already planned. Send a streetcar down Monroe Road. And convince the state to move its Regional Farmers Market to some of the vacant properties on Independence.

Yep, I think the recommendations this morning from a panel from the nonprofit Urban Land Institute will prompt some talk.

“My eyes lit up at the options,” was the reaction from Carolyn Flowers, chief of the Charlotte Area Transit System. Even before the panel presentation had wound down, she was emailing to see if a presentation could be made to the Metropolitan Transit Commission, CATS’ governing body, next month.

Her eyes lit up because the transit recommendation for Independence would, in essence, mean the state builds that Indy Boulevard transit line, and all cash-strapped CATS would have to find is money to buy buses and other equipment and to pay drivers. The ULI panel recommendation would even mean cost savings for the N.C. Department of Transportation for its long-planned Independence Boulevard widening project.

That’s because the current plans to widen Indy Boulevard – a project for which there is at present no money in the state’s five-year plan, but which is likely to get funded at some point later – call for a 52-foot center section to be reserved for a future CATS transit project – maybe light rail (LRT), maybe bus rapid transit (BRT); the MTC still has to decide. If you eliminate that 52-foot section but still build the planned HOT/HOV lanes, you could run BRT or express buses in the HOT lanes (and remember T=toll=revenue stream), and still need a narrower overall corridor, i.e. less money needed to buy right-of-way.

NCDOT secretary Gene Conti was part of the panel, so I’m assuming he’d have scotched recommendations that were thoroughly unworkable from NCDOT’s point of view.

But …..

East Charlotte residents have spent years pushing for light rail transit, not bus, along Independence. They know LRT in general attracts more development than bus transit, because the rail means the route won’t get switched, unlike a less permanent bus route. How will this new idea go over with them? Will the suggested addition of a streetcar along Monroe Road be enough of an inducement?

Several ULI panel members, from cities such as Houston, Denver and New York, all sang variations on this theme: Putting light rail along a limited-access, high-speed and high-volume highway like Independence won’t attract much development. That’s been a lesson from Denver’s light rail, which runs next to a freeway, they said. “Nodes [neighborhood centers] on high-speed corridors do not work,” said Carlton Brown, an economic development expert with Full Spectrum, a development firm in New York and Jackson, Miss.

So, they say, plan to put rail along the smaller commercial corridors where it does have a chance to attract transit-oriented redevelopment: Central Avenue and Monroe Road. Of course, no one had concrete proposals for how to find revenue to build even the Central Avenue streetcar, much less adding another. Their suggestions: Get creative. Build in phases. Find a benefactor, like Bill Gates helping the Seattle-to-Tacoma line. That led to a quip from an elected official in the audience – whom I’ll not name, and so this person owes me one – about the “Leon and Sandra Levine Line.” After all, the Family Dollar headquarters is right on Monroe …

I was sitting next to East Charlotte activist Susan Lindsay. Her immediate reaction was that she wanted to know more before coming to a conclusion about whether to support or oppose the suggestions. But since the MTC lacks money for any transit of any form down Independence – or for any streetcars, any West Charlotte transit, or even enough money to extend the one light rail line past UNC Charlotte – a proposal that might allow rapid transit there in our lifetimes could just win some support.

Note: The ULI panel’s recommendations are simply that – ideas from a group of experts from around the country. They don’t supersede any existing plans or change any priorities.

Photo: Streetcar in Portland, Ore.

A sidewalk legend that just won’t die

Instead of posting this comment on the previous sidewalk piece, “Sidewalks: Fines? Red China? Remove fences?” I want to highlight it here, in hopes of killing some out-of-date misinformation that has a remarkable shelf life in local memory.

The fact that people continue to be confused about whether the city will repair a sidewalk or makes property owners pay for repairs is an indicator, I think, of how lame the city’s overall sidewalk policies and advocacy have been. This shouldn’t be read as an indictment of Charlotte Department of Transportation’s pedestrian program manager, Vivian Coleman. [Note, 1:40 p.m. Jan. 5: Coleman has been promoted and is now Transportation Planner.] She has to swim upstream in a city of nonpedestrians and a city government that is only oh-so-slowly concluding pedestrians do, after all, deserve consideration. Indeed, CDOT may now be more enlightened on that matter than many other local agencies. (Can you say, “Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools”?)

Here’s the comment, sent from “Bruce Keith” sent about 10 p.m. Monday (Jan. 3):
If a sidewalk fails or breaks and the homeowner doesn’t pay to repair it, the city will pave it with Asphalt, even in Historic Districts. This fence most likely is in the right of way but the city should maintain ALL of its infrastructure and ENFORCE all of its ordinances. This fence should be moved or removed and the city should maintain the walk, as it is Public Property in a Public ROW [right-of-way].
Commenter Keith is about 10 years out of date on that repair issue. CDOT used to charge property owners part of repair costs and, if owners wouldn’t pay, the patch was cheap asphalt. But it changed its sidewalk repair policy in 2001. “Just as CDOT repairs potholes for cars, broken sidewalks are repaired to maintain quality facilities for pedestrians,” CDOT spokeswoman Linda Durrett wrote me in an e-mail.

Plenty of Charlotteans don’t realize the repair policy changed, and many repeat that bit of lore, maybe because some of those old asphalt patches are still around? In any event, if you want to read more about sidewalk repair policies, here’s a link.

You’ll note I didn’t address the issue of rights-of-way and whether the city can legally require people to clear off sidewalks in the city (or state) right-of-way. I’m still checking on the legal issues. The city also expects property owners to mow the grass in planting strips, an expectation that doesn’t seem to bring out nearly the hostility as asking people to keep leaves, snow, ice, etc. off their sidewalks. Go figure.

And the comment about rollout trash bins? Yet another reason that those horrible back-of-curb sidewalks are and were an abomination. Thank goodness the city no longer allows them to be built that way. But if you’re in an area that’s stuck with them, you have little choice but to clog the sidewalks with them, and, if you’re thoughtful, haul them back in as soon as you can.

Will spurned Wis., Ohio, rail money come to N.C.?

U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood dropped major hints today in Charlotte about more federal money coming to North Carolina’s high-speed rail plans, from funds to be reallocated away from Wisconsin and Ohio. LaHood and Federal Transit Administrator Peter Rogoff were in town speaking to about a hundred local and regional politicians and transportation officials.

Both those Midwest states elected Republican governors this month who campaigned against high-speed rail projects in their states that had won big federal grants: $810 million to Wisconsin for Milwaukee-to-Madison, and $400 million to Ohio for the so-called 3Cs project: Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati.

“Some governors were elected who said maybe we don’t want to be in the high-speed rail business,” LaHood said. “We are going to reallocate some money from Ohio and Wisconsin.”
Because of North Carolina’s work already on high-speed rail (and its work on intercity passenger rail), he said, “We are going to be making some announcements about that. … Because of the leadership of the state on high-speed rail, you all are going to be in the high-speed rail business.”

Wisconsin’s Gov.-elect Scott Walker has recently been waffling on whether to give back the $810 million, suggesting maybe it could be used for other transportation needs. But Wednesday, speaking in Charlotte, LaHood was specific. “The money’s going to be reallocated,” he said. Firmly.

Turns out the question of reallocation came up Tuesday at a high-speed rail conference in Richmond. My colleague Jack Betts (see his This Old State blog) asked Patrick Simmons of the N.C. DOT’s rail division about the possibility. Simmons replied to Betts via e-mail: “If OH & WI do not follow through then I expect USDOT to allocate the monies where they can be put to work for the original program of investing in infrastructure, creating jobs, enhancing mobility and so on. From our years of work and previous investments NC is well-positioned to compete for these funds. Several other states will be competitive too.”

(See below for more talk of reallocation, this time of streetcar money, possibly toward Charlotte.)

Other key points from the talk:

– LaHood’s oft-mentioned use of the term “public-private partnerships.” Why? “There are not enough tax dollars to do all the things we want to do. We have to rely on the private sector.”

– Rogoff (right) heaped praise on Charlotte: “Charlotte has been one of our great success stories,” he said. He mentioned not just the light rail but the city’s partnership with the private sector (Bank of America) in building the Transportation Center on Fourth Street uptown. He pointed out Charlotte was one of only five cities to win an urban circulator grant for a streetcar and said the city’s earlier work to lay the tracks [along Elizabeth Avenue] while pavement was already torn up for a street improvement “is visionary thinking.”

– Rogoff again: People try to pit transit versus highway. “I think it’s a false choice,” he said. He pointed out 55 percent of all transit trips in America are on roads – by bus. “I need a good efficient road system.”

More reallocation in the future?

This afternoon, amid a lengthy meeting of the Metropolitan Transit Commission about diminished transit revenues, Charlotte Area Transit System chief Carolyn Flowers mentioned that Charlotte was one of only five cities to get a streetcar grant in July. (LaHood mentioned the same). Charlotte, so far, is the only city still moving ahead on its streetcar, she said, and it’s possible some of those federal funds might be reallocated.

FTA rules said construction must start within 18 months or the city will lose the money. Chicago, St. Louis, Cincinnati and Dallas-Fort Worth also received money for streetcars.

Photo credit: Ray LaHood in Charlotte. DAVIE HINSHAW / CHARLOTTE OBSERVER STAFF

Will spurned Wis., Ohio, rail money come to N.C.?

U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood dropped major hints today in Charlotte about more federal money coming to North Carolina’s high-speed rail plans, from funds to be reallocated away from Wisconsin and Ohio. LaHood and Federal Transit Administrator Peter Rogoff were in town speaking to about a hundred local and regional politicians and transportation officials.

Both those Midwest states elected Republican governors this month who campaigned against high-speed rail projects in their states that had won big federal grants: $810 million to Wisconsin for Milwaukee-to-Madison, and $400 million to Ohio for the so-called 3Cs project: Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati.

“Some governors were elected who said maybe we don’t want to be in the high-speed rail business,” LaHood said. “We are going to reallocate some money from Ohio and Wisconsin.”
Because of North Carolina’s work already on high-speed rail (and its work on intercity passenger rail), he said, “We are going to be making some announcements about that. … Because of the leadership of the state on high-speed rail, you all are going to be in the high-speed rail business.”

Wisconsin’s Gov.-elect Scott Walker has recently been waffling on whether to give back the $810 million, suggesting maybe it could be used for other transportation needs. But Wednesday, speaking in Charlotte, LaHood was specific. “The money’s going to be reallocated,” he said. Firmly.

Turns out the question of reallocation came up Tuesday at a high-speed rail conference in Richmond. My colleague Jack Betts (see his This Old State blog) asked Patrick Simmons of the N.C. DOT’s rail division about the possibility. Simmons replied to Betts via e-mail: “If OH & WI do not follow through then I expect USDOT to allocate the monies where they can be put to work for the original program of investing in infrastructure, creating jobs, enhancing mobility and so on. From our years of work and previous investments NC is well-positioned to compete for these funds. Several other states will be competitive too.”

(See below for more talk of reallocation, this time of streetcar money, possibly toward Charlotte.)

Other key points from the talk:

– LaHood’s oft-mentioned use of the term “public-private partnerships.” Why? “There are not enough tax dollars to do all the things we want to do. We have to rely on the private sector.”

– Rogoff (right) heaped praise on Charlotte: “Charlotte has been one of our great success stories,” he said. He mentioned not just the light rail but the city’s partnership with the private sector (Bank of America) in building the Transportation Center on Fourth Street uptown. He pointed out Charlotte was one of only five cities to win an urban circulator grant for a streetcar and said the city’s earlier work to lay the tracks [along Elizabeth Avenue] while pavement was already torn up for a street improvement “is visionary thinking.”

– Rogoff again: People try to pit transit versus highway. “I think it’s a false choice,” he said. He pointed out 55 percent of all transit trips in America are on roads – by bus. “I need a good efficient road system.”

More reallocation in the future?

This afternoon, amid a lengthy meeting of the Metropolitan Transit Commission about diminished transit revenues, Charlotte Area Transit System chief Carolyn Flowers mentioned that Charlotte was one of only five cities to get a streetcar grant in July. (LaHood mentioned the same). Charlotte, so far, is the only city still moving ahead on its streetcar, she said, and it’s possible some of those federal funds might be reallocated.

FTA rules said construction must start within 18 months or the city will lose the money. Chicago, St. Louis, Cincinnati and Dallas-Fort Worth also received money for streetcars.

Photo credit: Ray LaHood in Charlotte. DAVIE HINSHAW / CHARLOTTE OBSERVER STAFF