Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Can someone explain to me why this streetcar project is a good thing? We are spending millions of dollars so the street car can go on a route that marta already supplies through buses, and that will go in a regular lane (with car traffic) and stop in that lane hindering traffic?
Because it is a base for other streetcar routes.
And it has worked well in other cities where it is used, check out Portland,OR for a good example.
Can someone explain to me why this streetcar project is a good thing? We are spending millions of dollars so the street car can go on a route that marta already supplies through buses, and that will go in a regular lane (with car traffic) and stop in that lane hindering traffic?
Well, the story about the streetcars being gobbled up by GM and Standard Oil has been around a long time, although some claim it's an urban myth embedded in our liberal mentality.
Personally I don't doubt for a second that the automakers and their allies did their absolute best to push their products. But if Americans were victims of a vast marketing conspiracy, they were certainly eager and willing victims. We bought cars by the hundred of millions, and proudly drove them on our miraculous new highways and parked them in the driveways of homes. There are few things that capture the spirit and romance of 20th Century America more than the automobile.
I grew up in an era where passenger rail was still very much alive. There were dozens, possibly even hundreds of passenger trains rolling in and out of Atlanta's two terminals every day. And I've lived in other parts of the country where good rail service was a fact of life.
I loved living that way and I miss trains a lot. I sincerely hope they make a comeback. In my opinion, however, we have to recognize not only the reality of our built environment but the social and cultural mores of how we live. It doesn't help to engage in hyperbole about how Americans were "forced" into cars, or how they are going to be "forced" back into mass transit. The latter sounds truly ominous.
[] No myth - GM, and its co-conspirators targeted the destruction of urban rail starting in the 1920s. Why? Car sales were stagnant, 90% of all trips were by urban rail. For the most part, city people didn't need cars.
GM's National City lines had a complex approach - take over streetcar lines, bollix up the service, change public opinion, then substitute "modern" buses - that many didn't like - so that more people would be "nudged" to buy automobiles in the alternative. It worked too well. (And destroyed the livability of compact inner cities in the process)
[] Before 1950, America was "Queen of Oil". After 1970s, and peak production was reached, oil was no longer "cheap and plentiful". Today, we import over 70% of our consumption.
[] See this
[] The only "Force" is economics. If you have a fixed budget, you want the most for that budget. If transportation by electric traction rail becomes available, and more economical than owning / operating a fossil fuel powered automobile, your wallet will "force" you to change. Unfortunately, allowing government to control it will not result in an optimal system. Remember, an elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.
The best possible solution would be the opposite of public funding - and its political baggage - zero tax liability.
Any company (and its employees) should be granted a zero tax liability if 100% involved in manufacturing, building, operating, or maintaining electric traction rail - streetcars, interurbans, subways, funiculars, etc., etc.
Not only would a flood of investment come in, but the industry will race to complete systems and get them moving passengers and cargo - because delays will cost money.
With profit as the sole motive, the only way to succeed is to keep the customer satisfied - moving more people, where they want to go, cheaper, faster, better, than any other format.
[] No myth - GM, and its co-conspirators targeted the destruction of urban rail starting in the 1920s. Why? Car sales were stagnant, 90% of all trips were by urban rail. For the most part, city people didn't need cars.
GM's National City lines had a complex approach - take over streetcar lines, bollix up the service, change public opinion, then substitute "modern" buses - that many didn't like - so that more people would be "nudged" to buy automobiles in the alternative. It worked too well. (And destroyed the livability of compact inner cities in the process)
[] Before 1950, America was "Queen of Oil". After 1970s, and peak production was reached, oil was no longer "cheap and plentiful". Today, we import over 70% of our consumption.
[] See this
[] The only "Force" is economics. If you have a fixed budget, you want the most for that budget. If transportation by electric traction rail becomes available, and more economical than owning / operating a fossil fuel powered automobile, your wallet will "force" you to change. Unfortunately, allowing government to control it will not result in an optimal system. Remember, an elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.
The best possible solution would be the opposite of public funding - and its political baggage - zero tax liability.
Any company (and its employees) should be granted a zero tax liability if 100% involved in manufacturing, building, operating, or maintaining electric traction rail - streetcars, interurbans, subways, funiculars, etc., etc.
Not only would a flood of investment come in, but the industry will race to complete systems and get them moving passengers and cargo - because delays will cost money.
With profit as the sole motive, the only way to succeed is to keep the customer satisfied - moving more people, where they want to go, cheaper, faster, better, than any other format.
One of the best posts I've read on this forum! Thanks!
The city’s application for a federal grant to help pay for the streetcar mentions the word “traffic” three times in 28 pages, and one of those references concerns how to slow traffic along the corridor the streetcar will travel — 2.6 miles, from Centennial Olympic Park to the King Center.
That’s because the streetcar is not intended to address traffic, its proponents say, but to act as a blueprint for a new kind of city. It will attract life and people and investment all along the streetcar line, they say, and could be the beginning of a larger system that would transform Atlanta and how Atlantans move.
But opponents view the streetcar as a government train wreck — an expensive downtown pipe dream and, in any case, an unwise use of transportation funding when every dime should go toward commuter transit such as MARTA or relieving traffic congestion.
The city’s application for a federal grant to help pay for the streetcar mentions the word “traffic” three times in 28 pages, and one of those references concerns how to slow traffic along the corridor the streetcar will travel — 2.6 miles, from Centennial Olympic Park to the King Center.
That’s because the streetcar is not intended to address traffic, its proponents say, but to act as a blueprint for a new kind of city. It will attract life and people and investment all along the streetcar line, they say, and could be the beginning of a larger system that would transform Atlanta and how Atlantans move.
But opponents view the streetcar as a government train wreck — an expensive downtown pipe dream and, in any case, an unwise use of transportation funding when every dime should go toward commuter transit such as MARTA or relieving traffic congestion.
What I find pathetic about many of the opponents in the AJC article posted above is that these people expect the city of Atlanta to fund their Cobb or Gwinnett County commute. Maybe if Cobb and Gwinnett voted for MARTA years ago they would have trains. Maybe if Cobb and Gwinnett wanted transit improvements, they would vote for a penny sales tax to fund light rail or commuter rail. Why should Downtown/the city of Atlanta wait around for the rest of the metro area to get their act together? Why can't the city do something for itself to make it a better, more vibrant place? It shouldn't have to suffer because people in Cobb and Gwinnett County don't want to support transit improvements in their areas.
Again, this is a city of Atlanta project that will help spur much needed development Downtown. The development will occur - it has been proven in every city that has recently built a streetcar or light rail line. This project also includes much needed sidewalk improvements on portions of the route.
What I find pathetic about many of the opponents in the AJC article posted above is that these people expect the city of Atlanta to fund their Cobb or Gwinnett County commute. Maybe if Cobb and Gwinnett voted for MARTA years ago they would have trains. Maybe if Cobb and Gwinnett wanted transit improvements, they would vote for a penny sales tax to fund light rail or commuter rail. Why should Downtown/the city of Atlanta wait around for the rest of the metro area to get their act together? Why can't the city do something for itself to make it a better, more vibrant place? It shouldn't have to suffer because people in Cobb and Gwinnett County don't want to support transit improvements in their areas.
Well, as a Cobb resident, let me add my $0.02.
I have no problem with the City of Atlanta investing in projects that help the city and are desired by residents of the city. In fact, my opinion and position for a while is that the traffic problem and impacts of commutes to Atlanta from places like Cobb are way overblown.
I know many seem to disagree with me, but whenever I have driven downtown from my home in Marietta, I don't encounter what I would call bad traffic. Every now and then I run into what I would expect during rush hour in a big city, but nothing terrible. To be fair, I have seen much worse on GA400 and on I-85 from Gwinnett.
I also think that most residents in Cobb (speaking only for where I live and what I know best) do not work in the City of Atlanta, and frankly are not all that concerned about that situation. They work in other parts of Cobb, North Fulton, or in some cases Gwinnett. Traffic on I-285 is more of an issue to many than what happens in the City of Atlanta. Hence why MARTA is really not necessary or desired for most northern suburban commuters.
Very interesting discussion you have going on here.
It would be interesting to see poll results from metro Atlanta residents to the following questions: "Do you ride MARTA at least once a week? If so/not, why?" My guess for those who do ride would say: Affordability, convenience, less stressful, and it's better for the environment, probably in that order. Those who don't would say: Doesn't serve my commute, doesn't serve it conveniently, isn't safe, isn't reliable, again probably in that order.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KillaVibe786
Are we saying the ridership of MARTA can increase if women feel safer? And the only reason females are less likely to ride the MARTA is because males will harass or even worse attack them?
Thus the only way to change this, is to have male Cultural Revolution with my fellow man that is not OK to do this?
Nobody thinks this anything to do with proper policing and safety measure being put in place on the transpiration system?
My wife use to ride on the London tube system at night, and it was never an issue, she felt safe at all times. The London police department has a large metro division that monitors the entire system, not to mention there are cameras monitoring every inch of the system.
Also, when we say women don’t feel safe on the MARTA, are we saying white females only? Because I do see good number of females, but they are black. So are the white females scared to ride for other reasons?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeaconJ
People continue to say things like this even though MARTA is consistently ranked one of the safest systems in the nation. It's all about perception, not reality...and some people will never have a positive perception of MARTA or Downtown Atlanta - the two of which are frequently associated.
Somebody needs to publish a study of how many people are killed or seriously injured on MARTA trains vs. driving on Fulton or Dekalb Co. streets (since those are the two counties served by MARTA), per person-mile traveled. In other words, for every one million miles driven on our streets and ridden on MARTA, X number of people die. I'll bet that the numbers are lopsided in favor of mass transit.
Then MARTA, the state, or some organization needs to start putting up billboards and perhaps making advertisements that show this, preferably in shocking ways. Something like, show a coffin, and then the text "She believed driving was safer than riding MARTA." And then put a stat in smaller text that "Riding MARTA is X times safer than riding in a car (per person-mile traveled)." Call that crude, but those kinds of ads have a track record of getting people's attention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike7586
So why can't we build a suburb to suburb light rail line? Extend MARTA from Doraville to Norcross, then build a light rail line in Gwinnett that connects to MARTA via Norcross, then run the light rail along I-285 with stops in the Perimeter Area/Sandy Springs (possible MARTA connection?), Cumberland Area, and then run it up into Cobb ending by Kennesaw University. Eventually, they could either connect the light rail to the Arts Center MARTA station or extend MARTA up to Cumberland. I think it would also be worthwhile to extend MARTA not only to Norcross, but to Roswell and Alpharetta.
This way, you can go from suburb to suburb on the light rail line, or you can go Midtown/Downtown/Buckhead by connecting to MARTA rail.
You know that's in the proposal stage, right? Take a look at Concept 3 when you get a chance.
The sluggishness of rail transit development is a hallmark of government involvement.
It would be far far better if government got out of the way - by just granting a tax exemption to any private company that is 100% involved in building, operating or maintaining electric traction rail system.
But the odds of that happening are slim to none. Likewise, is the expectation of swift action on the part of government.
WOW.......I just watched this video! Although I was aware of the coercion and the propaganda in the past from GM(Being American means freedom of the open road....sell them the dream, then sell them the car!) I never really looked at how it has so deeply effected mass transit(financially and perception wise). Thanks for sharing that
Sad thing is nothing has really changed! I guess the saying "There is nothing old or new under the sun" holds more validity than we will ever know. You still have one side fighting for mass trans, and the other content trying to freeway us out of a jam! Both can co-exist with each other(etc...Japan, Europe, Asia) but no one side is really listening to each other! I guess the same can be said about politics, but that another story altogether!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.......I just watched this video! Although I was aware of the coercion and the propaganda in the past from GM(Being American means freedom of the open road....sell them the dream, then sell them the car!) I never really looked at how it has so deeply effected mass transit(financially and perception wise). Thanks for sharing that
