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 like a lot of what they had to say, at first, but not just the way they said it. I think Keith Parker would be CEO regardless of the failure.
But they are right about a lot of things in that article. I do think some people are taking the article wrong. Its not so much that these things happened because the failure of the TSPLOST and/or the Sierra Club , its a review of what has happened post TSPLOST.
I wish there was more of a Plan B happening, but I would rather wait than have the bloated mess that was the TSPLOST. Biggest reason being that it would have tainted future prospects of a large scale transit solution.
There is so much Keith Parker love going around, but has he actually achieved anything here yet other than admitting what we all know, that MARTA is inefficient and poorly managed?
I guess the 1st step is admitting that MARTA has a problem, but that is hardly an ground shaking revelation.
It is great to be hopeful, but until this guy does something that shows results, I'll remain skeptical.
There is so much Keith Parker love going around, but has he actually achieved anything here yet other than admitting what we all know, that MARTA is inefficient and poorly managed?
Hey, admitting fault is first step on the path to recovery, or something like that.
I think most of the Keith Parker love is composed mostly with a lot of hope and wishing he will turn things around and make MARTA a more valuable service. He does seem like the right guy for the position by all accounts. I think he won fans instantly by commuting to regularly use the system, as I think he should. I have to say I like him so far. But I'm not expecting everything.
I will agree with most of those points. But I still feel like think that the failure of TSPLOST has done some to get agencies to find other solutions, even if much of it would have happened regardless. Things like HOT lanes are a good example of something I don't think we would be getting as much of if they were getting highway funding from TSPLOST.
As cwkimbro mentioned, HOT lanes were already "baked in the cake" well before T-SPLOST came into being as the State of Georgia was awarded the $110 million grant from the Feds to convert the I-85 HOT lanes out of the existing HOV lanes in November 2008, roughly a year and four months before the legislation that enabled the T-SPLOST referendum was passed into law by the Georgia General Assembly at the end of the 2010 legislative session.
Also, the plans for the I-75/I-575 Northwest Corridor HOT Lanes in Cobb and Cherokee counties date back to at least November 2001, more than eight years before the legislation enabling the T-SPLOST referendum was passed into law by the Georgia General Assembly in 2010. NW HOV/BRT History Page
[SIZE=3]
Quote:
[SIZE=3]Project
History[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]The Northwest
Corridor Project is a combination of two projects that were initially undertaken
separately by GDOT and GRTA.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]The Georgia
Department of Transportation’s project to improve the I-75 corridor began as a
widening project to extend the existing HOV system from its current terminus at
Akers Mill Road to Wade Green Road. It also included adding HOV lanes on I-575
from the I-75 Interchange to Sixes Road. Work began on mapping and concept
development at the end of November 2001[/SIZE]
While I agree that the TSPLOST was flawed, the Sierra Club is doing damage control in this article. As a pro-transit organization their criticism of TSPLOST was that there were too many road projects and too little transit. Road projects with toll lanes and interchange improvements (some included in TSPLOST) seem to be occurring in the suburbs anyway. While transit is on hold. Finally, the positive developments that they claim are a result of the failure of the TSPLOST would have happened anyway.
1) Without explaining how the two are related, they claim that the failure of TSPLOST led to a new direction at MARTA with a more bottom line general manager and transit oriented development (TOD). The old general manager was already on her way out and TOD was already a priority at MARTA. TOD was on hold because of the economy, and is starting again because of the improvement in the economy.
2) They claim that Clayton county considering MARTA membership was caused only by the failure of TSPLOST. Once again they fail to mention that Clayton has always had some leaders interested in MARTA membership and that significant resistance to MARTA membership remains in the county, when Clayton would have had bus service running by now if TSPLOST had passed.
3) They claim that State funding for GRTA is a major advance caused by the failure of TSPLOST. GRTA was always state funded and almost went out of business because of the failure of TSPLOST. The fact that it was saved is reason for transit advocates to rejoice, but it is hardly a benefit of the failure of TSPLOST.
4) They criticized the TSPLOST for supporting new road projects over road maintenance and claim victory in that road projects are blocked. With the Governors intervention, interchange improvements on the perimeter and HOT lane projects are ongoing. Those are the very parts of the TSPLOST that the Sierra Club hated! However, inside the city were are getting no extra money for needed bridge replacements, street repairs and maintenance, or trails and transit for the Beltline.
So while from a transit advocates viewpoint, 1),2), and 3) are welcome developments, we would have been in the same or better situation if the TSPLOST passed. In 4), we who live in the city are much worse off than if TSPLOST passed.
Finally the Sierra Club promised that a plan B for transit would emerge if the TSPLOST was defeated. The article claims that the above constitute plan B. I am sorry, those are survival reactions not a plan. I applaud the leaders who are making the best out of a bad situation. The Sierra Club has shown no leadership on this issue in the last year and this article shows that they continue to show that they continue to stick their heads in the sand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kferq
People are interconnected and the availability of transit and roads have positive effects in distant regions.
Let us change the question: Should people in the Suburbs subsidize intown transit that they do use?
If transit reduces the number of cars on the road making commuting easier for the people in the suburbs, should they pay for that benefit?
Should people in the cities pay for roads in the Suburbs that they use? What about that those that they do not use?
If transit or roads increase the economic development of the region, who should pay for that?
Is it good stewardship of tax money to offer tax breaks to companies building new facilities?
Is it good stewardship of tax money to offer roads and transit to serve those facilities and/or make the area more attractive to business?
While the TSPLOST list was flawed, I reject the idea that it is inappropriate to spend money on projects which aid the economic development of the entire region. I pay for roads in the suburbs that I do not use because they help economic activity. People in North Fulton pay for transit that they seldom use, because it helps economic activity. We are a region and we need to start acting like one before we start losing ground to other regions.
Let us change the question: Should people in the Suburbs subsidize intown transit that they do use?
No. Because we should not be subsidizing it at all. We should get to a point where the full cost of the transit is paid by user fees (Including those users from the suburbs). To get to this point we will also have to use this model for transit's competitors as well, namely roads. And we now have the technology to do this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kferq
If transit reduces the number of cars on the road making commuting easier for the people in the suburbs, should they pay for that benefit?
No. But if usage drops enough for a given stretch of road it should consider selling off the land for some of those extra lanes, that land would be very attractive for a transit line. Roads should be operating with more of the same supply & demand mechanics that drive the rest of the country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kferq
Should people in the cities pay for roads in the Suburbs that they use? What about that those that they do not use?
Yes. No.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kferq
If transit or roads increase the economic development of the region, who should pay for that?
I think things like TADs are acceptable to regain the cost of the public infrastructure spending from said development.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kferq
Is it good stewardship of tax money to offer tax breaks to companies building new facilities?
No, I wish it was illegal. It is almost a form of corruption. But there is pressure to do it because other municipalities will.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kferq
Is it good stewardship of tax money to offer roads and transit to serve those facilities and/or make the area more attractive to business?
"I think things like TADs are acceptable to regain the cost of the public infrastructure spending from said development."
Quote:
Originally Posted by kferq
While the TSPLOST list was flawed, I reject the idea that it is inappropriate to spend money on projects which aid the economic development of the entire region. I pay for roads in the suburbs that I do not use because they help economic activity. People in North Fulton pay for transit that they seldom use, because it helps economic activity. We are a region and we need to start acting like one before we start losing ground to other regions.
There are still some regional projects that makes sense to work together on. But I think the trend towards having the users pay for the service is something I am very happy to see. I don't think we would have had that happen as much under TSPLOST. Yes, I know there were some plans before. But I think it has gained more traction now.
People are interconnected and the availability of transit and roads have positive effects in distant regions.
Let us change the question: Should people in the Suburbs subsidize intown transit that they do use?
If transit reduces the number of cars on the road making commuting easier for the people in the suburbs, should they pay for that benefit?
Should people in the cities pay for roads in the Suburbs that they use? What about that those that they do not use?
If transit or roads increase the economic development of the region, who should pay for that?
Is it good stewardship of tax money to offer tax breaks to companies building new facilities?
Is it good stewardship of tax money to offer roads and transit to serve those facilities and/or make the area more attractive to business?
While the TSPLOST list was flawed, I reject the idea that it is inappropriate to spend money on projects which aid the economic development of the entire region. I pay for roads in the suburbs that I do not use because they help economic activity. People in North Fulton pay for transit that they seldom use, because it helps economic activity. We are a region and we need to start acting like one before we start losing ground to other regions.
This may be one of the most intelligent posts I've yet to read on CD. Thank you.
No. Because we should not be subsidizing it at all. We should get to a point where the full cost of the transit is paid by user fees (Including those users from the suburbs). To get to this point we will also have to use this model for transit's competitors as well, namely roads. And we now have the technology to do this.
While increased cost recovery from user fees provides an additional revenue stream, there is no way it can exclusively pay for all transportation infrastructure.
For example let us look at the problem of getting people with low paying jobs to work. Low paying jobs are essential to keep our economy running. While I applaud them getting better jobs, somebody has to do these jobs as they do a lot of the little things that make businesses work. They can't afford housing near the job, because the price of housing near jobs is higher. They can't afford to pay the full price of bus or train service because they make near minimum wage. They can't afford HOT lanes or an increased gasoline tax gasoline to stand in traffic while the well off zoom past them. If each individual is forced to pay the full cost of their transportation, there will be an underclass that cannot afford to get to work. The recent report on suburban poverty cited the inability to get to work as a major contributing factor. Even if one does not care about the harm to the low wage workers and their families, lack of efficiency in the use of the labor force will become an increasing drag on our economic growth. It just doesn't work.
While increased cost recovery from user fees provides an additional revenue stream, there is no way it can exclusively pay for all transportation infrastructure.
False. We are already paying for it. Just not directly. Look into the past, transit was a competitive, private industry. Competition from subsidized transit and free roads killed it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kferq
For example let us look at the problem of getting people with low paying jobs to work. Low paying jobs are essential to keep our economy running. While I applaud them getting better jobs, somebody has to do these jobs as they do a lot of the little things that make businesses work. They can't afford housing near the job, because the price of housing near jobs is higher. They can't afford to pay the full price of bus or train service because they make near minimum wage. They can't afford HOT lanes or an increased gasoline tax gasoline to stand in traffic while the well off zoom past them. If each individual is forced to pay the full cost of their transportation, there will be an underclass that cannot afford to get to work. The recent report on suburban poverty cited the inability to get to work as a major contributing factor. Even if one does not care about the harm to the low wage workers and their families, lack of efficiency in the use of the labor force will become an increasing drag on our economic growth. It just doesn't work.
Guess what happens when a company can't find enough low-wage workers that can get to a given job? Wages go up. People can afford to live a nicer life closer to their job or with enough money to make the commute. By subsidizing transportation further and further out, we only encourage people to move further away from jobs and jobs to move further away from people.
Laws and regulations have their place to protect people and keep them safe, but we need to stop subsidizing industries to help select groups of people. It causes unintended consequences and creates more problems than it helps. Don't poor people need food too? Shouldn't we nationalize all of the grocery stores to make sure they are providing enough food to poor people? Then we can place them in every neighborhood and lower all the prices so it is affordable.
I wouldn't be so sure that wages go up. But lets suppose thats the result - wouldn't the underlying products also go up in price. So your groceries would be more expensive if the clerk makes $16/hr. I guess nationalizing a whole industry is a completely different way of doing things with a new set of problems as we have seen elsewhere in the world.
Everyone talks about low wages or jobs going overseas but the items americans love to buy cheap at stores like Walmart would cost a lot more if they were all american made. The low end wages may be higher but that wage wouldn't necessarily buy much more in goods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsvh
Guess what happens when a company can't find enough low-wage workers that can get to a given job? Wages go up. People can afford to live a nicer life closer to their job or with enough money to make the commute. By subsidizing transportation further and further out, we only encourage people to move further away from jobs and jobs to move further away from people.
Laws and regulations have their place to protect people and keep them safe, but we need to stop subsidizing industries to help select groups of people. It causes unintended consequences and creates more problems than it helps. Don't poor people need food too? Shouldn't we nationalize all of the grocery stores to make sure they are providing enough food to poor people? Then we can place them in every neighborhood and lower all the prices so it is affordable.
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.
