Results from a poll reported in the N&O today caught my attention. The left-leaning group Public Policy Polling asked respondents if they "would say yes to one of three tax options for transit improvements if it would reduce traffic congestion." The majority of folks were agreeable to some sort of tax increase. Of course the vague term "transit improvements" will be manipulated in the future to mean "light rail." Also left out of the question is any clarification of just how much these "transit improvements" may or may not "reduce traffic congestion."
I think it is safe to assume that light rail guru Randal O'Toole (aka the Antiplanner) was not included in the survey. Check out his blog - he has simply been on a roll of late. Folks clamoring for light rail in the Triangle, pay attention:
"Is there anything that transit agencies and rail advocates say about light rail that isn’t a lie? They call it high-capacity transit and it isn't. They claim they build them on budget and they don’t. They claim rail reduces congestion, and it increases it. They claim light rail catalyzes economic development, when all it does is catalyze more subsidies to development.
Light rail is really just one big, fat lie."