2012 Atlanta Region Transportation Referendum (employers, accounting, shuttles)

[gtcorndog]

Originally Posted by cqholt

I have been noticing that more people are riding the trains this year than past. Also, MARTA has been making adjustments to bus routes and adding capacity on congested routes.

Another freeway would take decades and cost even more than a new transit line. All the planned transit lines on the TIA use existing ROW and require minimal disruptions to people.

It would take a while and cost more than a new transit line, but it would actually relieve congestion and be used by more than the 5,000 new transit riders projected for the $1 billion being spent on the Clifton Corridor line.

[cqholt]

It would take a while and cost more than a new transit line, but it would actually relieve congestion and be used by more than the 5,000 new transit riders projected for the $1 billion being spent on the Clifton Corridor line.

The cost would be twice as much and do little to relieve congestion because it would be built where little people live to reduce the cost of land acquisition and tearing down people's home. Do we really want to destroy more of our natural landscape with pavement?

[shivtim]

Originally Posted by gtcorndog

It would take a while and cost more than a new transit line, but it would actually relieve congestion and be used by more than the 5,000 new transit riders projected for the $1 billion being spent on the Clifton Corridor line.

Studies show that new highways do NOT relieve congestion. It's called "induced demand." In a few years, the highway is crowded again. Lots of research on this, for example:
ScienceDirect.com - Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice - Relationships between highway capacity and induced vehicle travel
The Effects of Road Investments on Economic Output and Induced Travel Demand: Evidence for Urbanized Areas in the U.S. - Transport Research International Documentation - TRID
Transportation Research Board - Journal Article

Quit throwing around the highway on the Clifton Corridor example. It's been discussed over and over on this forum that there is simply no other option in that area. It's impossible to put a highway in or expand roads, and the existing network of buses and shuttles makes a dent but they still get caught in the same traffic as cars. Rail transit in this area will take almost two million cars off the road each year while providing direct access to major employers such as the CDC, Emory, Children's Healthcare, and the VA Hospital. The Clifton Corridor is actually one of the top employment sites in the entire metro. Everyone in that area (the business community, the residents, the local governments) have been clamoring for rail.

And again, your elected leaders chose these projects. Don't complain to us if you wanted a highway instead of a transit line.

[gtcorndog]

Originally Posted by shivtim

Studies show that new highways do NOT relieve congestion. It's called "induced demand." In a few years, the highway is crowded again. Lots of research on this, for example:
ScienceDirect.com - Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice - Relationships between highway capacity and induced vehicle travel
The Effects of Road Investments on Economic Output and Induced Travel Demand: Evidence for Urbanized Areas in the U.S. - Transport Research International Documentation - TRID
Transportation Research Board - Journal Article

Quit throwing around the highway on the Clifton Corridor example. It's been discussed over and over on this forum that there is simply no other option in that area. It's impossible to put a highway in or expand roads, and the existing network of buses and shuttles makes a dent but they still get caught in the same traffic as cars. Rail transit in this area will take almost two million cars off the road each year while providing direct access to major employers such as the CDC, Emory, Children's Healthcare, and the VA Hospital. The Clifton Corridor is actually one of the top employment sites in the entire metro. Everyone in that area (the business community, the residents, the local governments) have been clamoring for rail.

And again, your elected leaders chose these projects. Don't complain to us if you wanted a highway instead of a transit line.

So $1 billion for 5,000 riders is a good use of funds?

15% of the tax revenue raised would go to cater to less than 0.1% of the population paying for the project.

[neil0311]

Just read this from a week ago in the MDJ. Interesting perspective and insights.

The Marietta Daily Journal - TSPLOST related transit study seems aimed at avoiding inconvenient results

[arjay57]

This guy says it costs more to build rail lines than to lease each transit rider a new 7-series BMW for life.

US Public Transport New Starts (Rail) Cost per New Commuter

[shivtim]

Originally Posted by gtcorndog

So $1 billion for 5,000 riders is a good use of funds?

15% of the tax revenue raised would go to cater to less than 0.1% of the population paying for the project.

First of all, that's 5,000 NEW riders, not total riders. It's also 5,000 riders per day, or nearly 2,000,000 per year. And yes, it is a good use of funds. I know you're not listening, but I'll say it again: there is no other option in that area.

[shivtim]

Originally Posted by arjay57

This guy says it costs more to build rail lines than to lease each transit rider a new 7-series BMW for life.

US Public Transport New Starts (Rail) Cost per New Commuter

The people who try to make this type of argument really let their ignorance (or outright misleading nature) show. Ask yourself a few questions:

-Why doesn't the "buy a new car for everybody" idea take into account gas and maintenance money? Who is paying the car insurance? Who is paying tolls? Who is paying for annual emissions tests? Who is paying the taxes? Why are none of these costs included in the comparison?
-Is it politically feasible to buy a bunch of people cars using tax money? Obviously not. So why are we even discussing it?
-On what roads do all of these extra cars drive on? The already over-congested roads? Wouldn't buying everyone a car increase traffic and commute time for everyone else? Wouldn't it add to the existing problem, as opposed to transit, which would take cars off the road and improve congestion for everyone?
-Why aren't they accounting for the pollution generated by all of these extra cars? Who pays the increased healthcare costs?
-Who is paying for all the extra parking lots and parking structures that would be needed for all of these extra cars? Who is paying for the extra land needed to build these lots? Who is paying to maintain them?
-What about people who can't drive? Do we ignore people with disabilities and the elderly?
-The chart you linked to compares the 40-year operating cost of transit to the price of buying everyone a new car. Does he honestly think those cars are going to last 40 years? How is that even close to a fair comparison? You'd have to be buying everyone another new car every ten years, which would quadruple his price estimate for buying people cars.

[gtcorndog]

Originally Posted by shivtim

First of all, that's 5,000 NEW riders, not total riders. It's also 5,000 riders per day, or nearly 2,000,000 per year. And yes, it is a good use of funds. I know you're not listening, but I'll say it again: there is no other option in that area.

1/6th of the regional tax funds will go to add 5,000 riders.

You are spending $1 billion for 5,000 riders to be added to MARTA. That is absurd. Add some buses. Save the money and use it where it will actually get a decent return.

[BobKovacs]

Originally Posted by shivtim

First of all, that's 5,000 NEW riders, not total riders. It's also 5,000 riders per day, or nearly 2,000,000 per year. And yes, it is a good use of funds. I know you're not listening, but I'll say it again: there is no other option in that area.

That's like saying a road that serves 50,000 cars per day serves 20,000,000 cars per year. When its the same cars or riders every day, all you're doing by turning your daily figure into a yearly figure is putting a spin on it like a politician.