Keith Parker: MARTA’s rail system ideally would be double its size (Atlanta: purchases, university)
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.
As demand increases with only highways, you quickly have to build a new lane of highway, but as demand increases along rail, you don't have to do anything but run more trains (to a point).
That's all I'm saying, I'm not saying MARTA should run trains at 3.5 minute headways right now.
I know what you are saying and I don't think anyone is debating the capacity constraints of a lane of highway versus a heavy rail line.
At some point it comes down to fiscal common sense. A reasonable person doesn't go buy/build a $400,000 5 bedroom house right out of college with the thought that 10-15 years down the line they might grow into the house. That doesn't make sense. You make that investment once you have 2 or 3 kids, and a revenue stream that can support such a purchase. Likewise, you don't spend $200 million a mile on heavy rail with the idea that at some point way down the line that capacity might be needed. Look at the failed Clifton Corridor - TSPLOST experiment. Close to $1 billion was earmarked for 8 miles of light rail that was going to attract 5,450 new transit riders. This represents a ridiculously poor ROI. Sure, that light rail offers a ton of capacity beyond the project's projected 17,800 (9,000-ish daily rider) projections, but if the best estimate is that that capacity goes unused, the capacity is worthless. Given the financial constraints of federal, state and local governments, big spending projects that inefficiently use capacity simply are not going to realistically happen.
That's a bad comparison. Whereas the utility of a large house might not be realized until 10-15 years down the road, the utility of the high-capacity transit would be realized immediately. The traffic problem exists now, and your short-term solution is to build more and more lanes until they're choked enough to "justify" the full capacity of a heavy rail system. The advantage of rail is that it scales very well. It serves moderate demand well, but doesn't require a lot of work to scale to high demand which WILL happen along this corridor. Don't forget, we're talking about 15 years before revenue service, the area is growing and short of passing a law to stop all development along the highway, the traffic problem will increase. We can either try to throw our pennies a few at a time at the highway until it's consumed all the available right of way, and we'll need transit anyways. Or we can invest our pennies en masse now and not have to worry about growth for many years.
Incidentally, Clifton Corridor isn't failed, work will continue and it probably will be built. It's just gotten delayed unfortunately by the T-SPLOST failure.
That's a bad comparison. Whereas the utility of a large house might not be realized until 10-15 years down the road, the utility of the high-capacity transit would be realized immediately. The traffic problem exists now, and your short-term solution is to build more and more lanes until they're choked enough to "justify" the full capacity of a heavy rail system. The advantage of rail is that it scales very well. It serves moderate demand well, but doesn't require a lot of work to scale to high demand which WILL happen along this corridor. Don't forget, we're talking about 15 years before revenue service, the area is growing and short of passing a law to stop all development along the highway, the traffic problem will increase. We can either try to throw our pennies a few at a time at the highway until it's consumed all the available right of way, and we'll need transit anyways. Or we can invest our pennies en masse now and not have to worry about growth for many years.
Incidentally, Clifton Corridor isn't failed, work will continue and it probably will be built. It's just gotten delayed unfortunately by the T-SPLOST failure.
I disagree that the benefits and utility would be immediately seen. The rail might benefit a few immediately, but if the ridership numbers don't justify the immediate investment, then the full utility is not realized.
I agree that is scales very well, but there is little justification to build VERY expensive rail routes along corridors that don't offer immediate benefits. Sure, in 30, 40 years that rail route might offer significant benefits, but for 5,000 new riders (MARTA's own projections), $1 billion is a lot to spend when that $1 billion could be otherwise spent on projects that do offer immediate returns. There is a finite amount of funding available and spending sums that large on projects that offer minimal, immediate regional impact is a problem.
If there were more funding available, an entirely different discussion, I could see taking a longer term view on transportation spending. However, given the fiscal constraints the region is working with, you can't ignore immediate needs in favor of long term projects.
Well, I disagree that the utility wouldn't be immediately seen. Frankly, there isn't anything left to do to the GA-400 corridor. It's really impossible to expand anymore, and even the stretch inside I-285 is already jammed. While I agree that the 285 interchange is worthwhile, that really doesn't address overall capacity, now or future. The Red Line trains to North Springs are already very full on weekdays, even off-peak. MARTA's projection don't show only 5000 riders, you're thinking of the Clifton Corridor. MARTA's documents for the 400 expansion estimate 10,000 new boardings, with ridership of over 23,000.
It is those very fiscal constraints you speak of that mean we have to go for the funding whenever it's available. Transit funding isn't a guarantee unlike road funding for some reason. Transit projects also tend to take longer. Let me ask you this: MARTA hasn't needed to make substantial capacity expansions since its original construction. What if we hadn't built MARTA under the same excuse "there are better ways to spend that money?" Or the North Springs extension in 2000. What if we hadn't built that? Would Perimeter look the same today? Would the region have as many offices and headquarters, many of which are in that area, without MARTA and its extensions?
Funding transit by 100% user fees only works if we do it for roads too. As we see today. But casual users will reconsider "jumping into their cars" if they had to pay a toll for their use that was noticeably higher than a MARTA fare. Either way, let the people vote with the wallet.
I also agree about helping the poor, but forcing them away from jobs and to the suburbs with free roads and flat-fare transit is not the answer. A Basic Income is.
How can you be a anti-tax, anti-government libertarian and be in favor of a "basic income" . Lol
Location: Vinings/Cumberland in the evil county of Cobb
1,317 posts, read 1,639,777 times
Reputation: 1551
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtcorndog
I know what you are saying and I don't think anyone is debating the capacity constraints of a lane of highway versus a heavy rail line.
At some point it comes down to fiscal common sense. A reasonable person doesn't go buy/build a $400,000 5 bedroom house right out of college with the thought that 10-15 years down the line they might grow into the house. That doesn't make sense. You make that investment once you have 2 or 3 kids, and a revenue stream that can support such a purchase. Likewise, you don't spend $200 million a mile on heavy rail with the idea that at some point way down the line that capacity might be needed. Look at the failed Clifton Corridor - TSPLOST experiment. Close to $1 billion was earmarked for 8 miles of light rail that was going to attract 5,450 new transit riders. This represents a ridiculously poor ROI. Sure, that light rail offers a ton of capacity beyond the project's projected 17,800 (9,000-ish daily rider) projections, but if the best estimate is that that capacity goes unused, the capacity is worthless. Given the financial constraints of federal, state and local governments, big spending projects that inefficiently use capacity simply are not going to realistically happen.
You nailed it gtcorndog, and this is the problem. The stakeholders in this region past and present are extremely short-sighted, and while we wait for the decision-makers to get their head out of the sand, the costs of a sufficient answer to the regions transpsortation and traffic issues grow exponentially. Back in the 70s, was there no vision that the metro would be 5M strong? Who knew? So why make investments to attract business and population growth, and don't invest in a infrastructure to support that growth. It's always bigger than just today.
Well, I disagree that the utility wouldn't be immediately seen. Frankly, there isn't anything left to do to the GA-400 corridor. It's really impossible to expand anymore, and even the stretch inside I-285 is already jammed. While I agree that the 285 interchange is worthwhile, that really doesn't address overall capacity, now or future. The Red Line trains to North Springs are already very full on weekdays, even off-peak. MARTA's projection don't show only 5000 riders, you're thinking of the Clifton Corridor. MARTA's documents for the 400 expansion estimate 10,000 new boardings, with ridership of over 23,000.
It is those very fiscal constraints you speak of that mean we have to go for the funding whenever it's available. Transit funding isn't a guarantee unlike road funding for some reason. Transit projects also tend to take longer. Let me ask you this: MARTA hasn't needed to make substantial capacity expansions since its original construction. What if we hadn't built MARTA under the same excuse "there are better ways to spend that money?" Or the North Springs extension in 2000. What if we hadn't built that? Would Perimeter look the same today? Would the region have as many offices and headquarters, many of which are in that area, without MARTA and its extensions?
Yes... I stated that all of my numbers were regarding the Clifton Corridor. That is the example I was using because there are no completed studies from MARTA on the cost and ridership projections for the the proposed 400 expansion. (Where are you getting your numbers from?)
With regards to your Perimeter question... I don't think the Perimeter area would look the same, but perhaps more of those commercial developments would've been built in Midtown and Downtown instead. While 100% of that development wouldn't have occurred, I believe that most of it still would've occurred somewhere in the region.
How can you be a anti-tax, anti-government libertarian and be in favor of a "basic income" . Lol
I am not anti-tax or anti-government. They just have to be done right. Most Americans do not fall into the political stereotypes. And "Basic Income" is gaining support with a lot of people of different political leanings including many libertarians. There are better solutions out there than the stereotypical ones the two parties offer.
Well, I disagree that the utility wouldn't be immediately seen. Frankly, there isn't anything left to do to the GA-400 corridor. It's really impossible to expand anymore, and even the stretch inside I-285 is already jammed. While I agree that the 285 interchange is worthwhile, that really doesn't address overall capacity, now or future. The Red Line trains to North Springs are already very full on weekdays, even off-peak. MARTA's projection don't show only 5000 riders, you're thinking of the Clifton Corridor. MARTA's documents for the 400 expansion estimate 10,000 new boardings, with ridership of over 23,000.
It is those very fiscal constraints you speak of that mean we have to go for the funding whenever it's available. Transit funding isn't a guarantee unlike road funding for some reason. Transit projects also tend to take longer. Let me ask you this: MARTA hasn't needed to make substantial capacity expansions since its original construction. What if we hadn't built MARTA under the same excuse "there are better ways to spend that money?" Or the North Springs extension in 2000. What if we hadn't built that? Would Perimeter look the same today? Would the region have as many offices and headquarters, many of which are in that area, without MARTA and its extensions?
Until you get to 5 or 6 lanes in each direction, you can still expand. There is plenty of cushion in the GA-400 corridor north of 285.
It does make sense to preserve ROW for rail. But it doesn't make sense to build until you have the ridership. Just because you build it doesn't mean anyone will come. That is especially true for these light rail proposals that force everyone to transfer. Unless you get discretionary riders, these things are hard to justify. The slower and more complicated it is, the fewer discretionary riders.
And MARTA was built because Seattle rejected fed demonstration money. We got it paid for by others. That is no longer an option.
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.
