Communicating
about Commuter Rail

Bill Thunberg talks
about The Red Line.

by Scott Graf   |   photography by Glenn Roberson

   Commuter rail is once again a hot topic in the Lake Norman area. Consultants unveiled a new plan to build the so-called Red Line. It's a 25-mile project that would essentially run parallel to Highway 115 and would connect the lake with downtown Charlotte. Supporters say it would cost about $450 million.

Lately, those pushing for the Red Line have been asking local town and county boards to examine the proposal and offer feedback. That feedback has been mixed. To learn more about the project, we sat down with Bill Thunberg. He's the former mayor of Mooresville and the owner of Alexander Zachary Jewelers in Mooresville. He currently serves on the Lake Norman Regional Transportation Commission.

The Blue Line in Charlotte is light rail. The Red Line is commuter rail. What's the difference?

   Commuter rail has fewer stops, and it's more like an Amtrak car. It's pretty much heavy rail. So the person that's on commuter rail, if they get on the train in Mooresville and they're riding to Charlotte, they're going to be able to plug their laptop in and sit there and work. They're going to be able to read. It's a 30-minute ride with fewer stops. Itís a completely different animal.

Would this be an improvement for the area?

   Anytime you offer people choices of modes, at the very least, it's an improvement. Because you can get people in and out of work without having to have an automobile. If you use transit, whether it's bus, rail or other things.

Local towns would pay their portion of the $452 million cost with special taxes. Would you explain those?

   The concept is that CATS (Charlotte Area Transit System) will contribute $113 million, NCDOT will contribute $113 million. That left a gap of $226 million that had to be funded. So the method chosen is what's called value capture. There are two different methods of value capture recommended. One is Tax Increment Financing. What's done there is around each station, a TIF district is established which captures the base of the property tax rate. Then, as the economy grows and the value of those grows, anything above that base level is contributed to the joint powers authority, which would receive the funds and build the Red Line. And then a pretty much identical district in the same station area, a SID (Special Improvement District) is established. And that's a little bit of a different animal. It hasnít been used much in North Carolina, but it's been used all over the country. But the landowners in those districts can review this plan, see what they think of it, then they would petition the municipalities and say 'I want to pay for this, so I want you to charge me every year whatever this dollar amount is for my property, so we can pay and have this benefit.í It's an investment for them.

How is this different than funding models discussed in the past?

   It's quite different than the original method. The original model was for the public to pay for it and then the private people are going to benefit. The private sector is going to pay for it, and the public is going to benefit. It requires a little bit different way of thinking. But it also requires a lot of questions to be asked to be sure the public is going to get the benefit from allowing those revenues to be uploaded to the joint powers authority.

The funding model being discussed includes no money from the federal government. Why not?

   They have criteria. And they have formulas for ridership that you have to plug into in order to qualify. And we don't meet those characteristics.

If the Red Line doesn't meet the necessary federal ridership requirements, should the region be pursuing it?

   Those formulas are designed by people who have a certain bias. You know how government works. If they want to support projects that will be in bigger states that will have longer (rail) lines, then they back into the formula that they need to be able to do that.

Are you saying the lack of federal funding should not be looked at as a reflection on the quality of this project?

   Right. And the next time that they revise the (ridership requirement) legislation, it might be changed to a different formula.

The new plan was rolled out in late November. That was three months ago. What's the timeline for this project?

   The plan is to be vetted by all nine of the entities involved in it by the end of March. (The nine are CATS, NCDOT, Mecklenburg County, Iredell County, and the cities of Charlotte, Huntersville, Cornelius, Davidson and Mooresville.) So sometime in April, hopefully there would be a consensus plan that comes out of this that addresses some of the concerns that come up in the process of reviewing the draft business and financial plan. Because it's really designed to have people pull it apart and look at it. That's the process we're going through right now so we can really address everybody's concerns.

With nine different entities involved, there will be a wide range of opinions on the project. Do you think there's a solution that everyone can be satisfied with?

   I think there is if people are willing to say that they might not get 100 percent of what ìIî want right at this minute. There's gotta be some give and take to make things work. And that's what collaboration is all about. And there's absolutely no way that this project can proceed without the collaboration of these nine entities. If one says they can't do it, then the plan fails.

How would the Lake Norman area be different if this comes to fruition?

   That's a great question because what's lost in talking about the details of this particular project is the greater vision of the Lake Norman region. The great asset of this region is its quality of life. But that quality of life is endangered by its congestion and lack of mobility. So this project does a couple of different things. First, it gives you an alternative mode of transportation that's pretty much equal to a lane in I-77. At the same time, the mode serves people who have no ability to go to Charlotte now. And that's some of the disabled and the handicapped that can't drive to I-77 or who have unreliable transportation. It'll be a great boon to those folks.

But the other thing it does, it helps you fulfill your land use plan. Because this is on the east side of I-77. So much of the growth and congestion is on the west side of I-77. So if you're able to use the rail line to help you manage the growth that's coming. What it does is it says this is where we want the growth to occur. So you reduce the possibilities that those areas like around Exit 28 and Exit 36 get more congested by focusing your infrastructure investments in the region where the rail project takes place. So you're able to manage the problem in two different ways.

Do you have concerns about this project?

I'm a supporter of rail as an alternative mode of transportation. My concerns are the same concerns that everybody else has: That are we going to be able to pay for it the way we think we're going to be able to pay for it?

There have already been some strong statements against this proposal. Has that taken the wind out of its sails at all?

   First of all, I think the opposition comes from a philosophical point of view. You have that point of view and then you go out and look for things to validate that point of view. And my approach is a little bit different. Let's just go from a blank slate. Let's look at it and see how it works. Let's put our philosophical differences aside, and if we can agree that economic development is good and offering modes of transportation is good, let's see if it works. Sometimes those philosophical differences preclude people from being able to see beyond those positions that they hold. The second part of it is, read the plan and criticize the plan specifically, so that it can be fixed if it doesn't work. It's a whole lot easier to deal with if you say it doesn't work because you left this little piece out. You can deal with that, because then you talk about what that little piece is. But if you just say it doesn't work and it's a terrible idea, then tell me why it's terrible.

March is the do-or-die month for this proposal for the Red Line. What do you see happening?

   What I see happening is that the consultants will know what the specific criticisms are. And then they'll also know what the inclination of the private sector is. And I think we'll know by mid-April if this is viable or not.

You and a Mooresville man named Stan Thompson are supporters of something called Hydrail. It's hydrogen powered rail. Has that technology been able to get any traction?

   The answer to that is yes. But all the traction has been international. They've tested it in Japan, and they're getting ready to go live with one in Spain.

Would that technology work for the Red Line project?

   It would be a perfect circle. When Stan and I first came up with Hydrail, we were trying it as a means to help fund the Red Line. It hasnít quite worked out that way, but maybe the funding of the Red Line will create the opportunity for Hydrail, who knows? The seventh annual conference is in June in Birmingham, England. Stan and I'll be there for that conference.

What are the benefits of Hydrail?

   It's kind of the perfect world in terms of environmentally, dependence on fossil fuels and sustainability.

Is it just too early for Hydrail?

   It would seem that way. We feel like we're pushing a rock up the mountain. In the United States, everybody is focused on the automobile. And they think the automobile should come first. But the engineering at the automobile level is a couple orders of magnitude harder than doing it at the larger scale of rail.