ARC: Metro Atlanta population to hit 8 million by 2040 (Savannah, Kennesaw: cul-de-sac, credit)
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.
Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) on Wednesday predicted the metro area will add some 3 million people over the next 30 years.
That would bring the 20-county metro Atlanta area’s population to 8 million -- about the current population of Manhattan and roughly double metro Atlanta’s population in 2000 -- by 2040.
Interesting prediction. Where is Atlanta going to get the water to supply 8 million consumers? New York has a plan. It has an infrastructure that can get water from lakes near the Canadian border, it has mass transit that extends into NJ, CT, and further upstate, and it has the recognition that people have to pay taxes to support an infrastructure as money doesn't fall from the sky ("trickle down economics"). Either Atlanta is not going to reach anywhere near 8 million in the next 30 years or it is going to have to make some real "blue state" choices to have the infrastructure that you will find in Metropolitan New York, Los Angeles-Long Beach, Chicago, Washington-Baltimore, Philadelphia-Atlantic City, and Boston.
And Los Angeles isn't exactly a model to emulate. But that is closer to where Atlanta is headed than New York. Fixed rail transit in just two counties is unacceptable. Even Dallas-Fort Worth has commuter rail and the Metroplex is the champion for sprawl and is a closer approximation to what Atlanta is doing in terms of the rate of growth. But Georgia doesn't even have the flat, inexhaustable supply of land lacking physiographic impediments that Texas does. A metropolitan area with the dimensions of Dallas-Fort Worth (much less LA) in North Georgia would be an ecological disaster.
Interesting prediction. Where is Atlanta going to get the water to supply 8 million consumers? New York has a plan. It has an infrastructure that can get water from lakes near the Canadian border, it has mass transit that extends into NJ, CT, and further upstate, and it has the recognition that people have to pay taxes to support an infrastructure as money doesn't fall from the sky ("trickle down economics"). Either Atlanta is not going to reach anywhere near 8 million in the next 30 years or it is going to have to make some real "blue state" choices to have the infrastructure that you will find in Metropolitan New York, Los Angeles-Long Beach, Chicago, Washington-Baltimore, Philadelphia-Atlantic City, and Boston.
You make some false presumptions. I grew up in NY and lived near Boston. I paid those taxes.
First, much of the infrastructure in NYC was developed and built in the 1800s or early 1900s. While they recently built a new aqueduct from the upstate reservoirs, that system was built many years ago. Same for the transit and commuter rail. Most of it has been around since before the neighborhoods it serves. The taxes are considerably higher but are not directly tied to services delivered. NYC especially is the home of the most greedy unions on the planet, where guys who sweep the subway earn huge sums and retire on huge pensions based on the overtime and pension rules. The tolls, sales taxes, income tax, and other taxes feed the beast, they don't provide anything that hasn't been there for 75 to 100 years.
You make some false presumptions. I grew up in NY and lived near Boston. I paid those taxes.
First, much of the infrastructure in NYC was developed and built in the 1800s or early 1900s. While they recently built a new aqueduct from the upstate reservoirs, that system was built many years ago. Same for the transit and commuter rail. Most of it has been around since before the neighborhoods it serves. The taxes are considerably higher but are not directly tied to services delivered. NYC especially is the home of the most greedy unions on the planet, where guys who sweep the subway earn huge sums and retire on huge pensions based on the overtime and pension rules. The tolls, sales taxes, income tax, and other taxes feed the beast, they don't provide anything that hasn't been there for 75 to 100 years.
I think you are making some false presumptions. The infrastructure was STARTED 125 years ago but has been expanded and increased ever since. The consolidation of the five boroughs in 1886 was the catalyst for creating this transportation and utility infrastructure. So I'm not seeing where unions, tolls, and sales taxes are an issue. Florida lives off of tolls and sales taxes because their is no state income tax. I don't think Georgia should use Florida and a model to aspire too.
As a matter of fact, many people migrate out of Florida to Georgia despite the state income tax. You may disagree with unions but NYC runs much more efficiently than the Metro in DC (much less MARTA) because it is constantly being maintained, and maintained well. Once again, if you want a good infrastructure you have to pay for it. So if the people who go into subterranean tunnels with rats to maintain the tracks, water mains, and clear out debris want to unionize, more power to them. Union members pay dues so even they have the self-actualization that the protection of their labor rights comes at a cost. Once again, just conservative gibberish talking points about evil taxes and unions.
I think you are making some false presumptions. The infrastructure was STARTED 125 years ago but has been expanded and increased ever since. The consolidation of the five boroughs in 1886 was the catalyst for creating this transportation and utility infrastructure. So I'm not seeing where unions, tolls, and sales taxes are an issue. Florida lives off of tolls and sales taxes because their is no state income tax. I don't think Georgia should use Florida and a model to aspire too.
As a matter of fact, many people migrate out of Florida to Georgia despite the state income tax. You may disagree with unions but NYC runs much more efficiently than the Metro in DC (much less MARTA) because it is constantly being maintained, and maintained well. Once again, if you want a good infrastructure you have to pay for it. So if the people who go into subterranean tunnels with rats to maintain the tracks, water mains, and clear out debris want to unionize, more power to them. Union members pay dues so even they have the self-actualization that the protection of their labor rights comes at a cost. Once again, just conservative gibberish talking points about evil taxes and unions.
interesting discussion
I have two general points to make that should be discussed separately rather than blended into the same argument.
1) The country has gone through periods where it grew its infrastructure faster or slower than other periods. I think this is what neil was referring to. We have had times where we grow alot of infrastructure and then live off it for 50 years or more before re approach major expansions (not just minor ones). The northeast is not immune to this. Consider the subway system in NYC. It is far larger than Atlanta's. That is partly to do with NYC was a very large city when building subways was more popular and at that point in time Atlanta was much smaller in comparison. In many ways NYC and Atlanta in the latter part of this decade have not seen major expansions together, but one is older and has that larger legacy infrastructure. Both have made some expansions, but it is nothing in comparison in what was seen the early part of the last century.
2) Going local... Alot of people (especially from out of town) don't know how much you actually know/understand the particulars of our water situation. The politics of coming up with a 3 state agreement aside.... let me say this and make very clear.... Georgia is in a --humid, sub tropical climate--. We get lots of rain...more so than NY, more so than the midwest and alot more so than Southern California. Much more so than most of the other major cities in the U.S. and more so than most the cities that are larger than us in the U.S.
Metro Atlanta only takes out 1% of the water from the Chattahoochee River Basin (2.5% on a heavy drought year). There is plenty of water. What is changing is we need to come up with proper long-term agreements and strategies for how water should be apportioned and used and we are having to negotiate with two states that don't have and never have had a water plan.
The infrastructure improvements we will have to make are nothing in comparison to the larger cities that had to set up huge aqueduct system to move large amounts of water from one region to another, even though very conservative people in Georgia will think those are large expenses, in comparison to other regions they won't be.
I have two general points to make that should be discussed separately rather than blended into the same argument.
1) The country has gone through periods where it grew its infrastructure faster or slower than other periods. I think this is what neil was referring to. We have had times where we grow alot of infrastructure and then live off it for 50 years or more before re approach major expansions (not just minor ones). The northeast is not immune to this. Consider the subway system in NYC. It is far larger than Atlanta's. That is partly to do with NYC was a very large city when building subways was more popular and at that point in time Atlanta was much smaller in comparison. In many ways NYC and Atlanta in the latter part of this decade have not seen major expansions together, but one is older and has that larger legacy infrastructure. Both have made some expansions, but it is nothing in comparison in what was seen the early part of the last century.
2) Going local... Alot of people (especially from out of town) don't know how much you actually know/understand the particulars of our water situation. The politics of coming up with a 3 state agreement aside.... let me say this and make very clear.... Georgia is in a --humid, sub tropical climate--. We get lots of rain...more so than NY, more so than the midwest and alot more so than Southern California. Much more so than most of the other major cities in the U.S. and more so than most the cities that are larger than us in the U.S.
Metro Atlanta only takes out 1% of the water from the Chattahoochee River Basin (2.5% on a heavy drought year). There is plenty of water. What is changing is we need to come up with proper long-term agreements and strategies for how water should be apportioned and used and we are having to negotiate with two states that don't have and never have had a water plan.
The infrastructure improvements we will have to make are nothing in comparison to the larger cities that had to set up huge aqueduct system to move large amounts of water from one region to another, even though very conservative people in Georgia will think those are large expenses, in comparison to other regions they won't be.
Excellent point about New York being larger than Atlanta. However, it is more an issue of time. When New York first constructed its subway/elevated track system its population was the same size as Fulton and DeKalb's population when MARTA was first built. The difference is, there were no automobiles when New York constructed a subway. To think Atlanta can continue this pace of growth without the expansion of mass transit (and not more buses to get stuck in traffic with everyone else) is just not rational.
And I would have to disagree about the water situation. Indentured Servant posted this link on a similar forum and it is consistent with everything I have heard. All of these sunbelt cities with explosive growth since the 1990s just aren't sustainable and don't have enough water. Accordingly, droughts are much more prolonged and intense that anything that occurs in New York State.
First, just a point of historical accuracy...NYC consolidated in 1898. The IRT opened in 1904, and the last of the three lines, the IND, was completed and opened in 1940. There have been some small additions in 1968 and the 63rd St and Archer Ave extensions opened in the late 1980s. The subway systems was mostly completed by 1940.
Most of the LIRR, and what is now the Metro North Commuter RR, was also built in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Sure, there has been electrification and modernization, but the lines are essentially the same as what was there 100 years ago. Same for most of the lines in NJ, including the PATH which was constructed in the late 1800s and opened in 1907.
Most of the water system was likewise built many years ago, and has been updated.
Metro Atlanta only takes out 1% of the water from the Chattahoochee River Basin (2.5% on a heavy drought year). There is plenty of water. What is changing is we need to come up with proper long-term agreements and strategies for how water should be apportioned and used and we are having to negotiate with two states that don't have and never have had a water plan.
You are completely right about the water situation! There is no shortage at all due to abundant annual rainfall, barely tapped river resources and the Floridian aquifer to the South. Atlanta will never "run out" of water like Los Angeles, Phoenix or Las Vegas. But, like you said, we need to come up with a comprehensive plan to manage water in the future.
And I would have to disagree about the water situation. Indentured Servant posted this link on a similar forum and it is consistent with everything I have heard. All of these sunbelt cities with explosive growth since the 1990s just aren't sustainable and don't have enough water. Accordingly, droughts are much more prolonged and intense that anything that occurs in New York State.
So you disagree with hard facts and side with editorializing and generalizations instead?
cwkimbro posted this fact sheet which is a very good starting point for understanding the actual issue:
Nobody disagrees that solutions need to be found, which involves both infrastructure and politics, but Atlanta's underlying water resources are sufficient to support a MUCH larger city. And yes, we already pay ridiculously high water prices (higher than folks up north; some of us pay the highest in the country) and are investing in projects to return treated water to the basins, etc. We need to invest more, but it's far from an insurmountable growth barrier or something.
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.
New York has a plan. It has an infrastructure that can get water from lakes near the Canadian border, it has mass transit that extends into NJ, CT, and further upstate, and it has the recognition that people have to pay taxes to support an infrastructure as money doesn't fall from the sky ("trickle down economics"). Either Atlanta is not going to reach anywhere near 8 million in the next 30 years or it is going to have to make some real "blue state" choices to have the infrastructure that you will find in Metropolitan New York, Los Angeles-Long Beach, Chicago, Washington-Baltimore, Philadelphia-Atlantic City, and Boston. 
