Atlanta #1 Metro area for sprawl (Decatur: how much, airport, bill)

[MattCW]

Originally Posted by AnsleyPark

I intend to do something about it - not ride the train any more. Transit = my car. Others may ride the train with the nut jobs if they find it to be the transportation panacea.

That's your loss, enjoy being stuck in traffic burning gas money. MARTA can't do anything about problems if they aren't told about them. If a drunk guy barged into your car would you not use your car anymore because you don't want to tell the police there's a problem?

Originally Posted by PJA

But since the government insists on continuing to tax us, I would rather most of those taxes go to where it will benefit the most...and that is road infrastructure. However public transportation should continue to be funded as well for those who cant afford cars and for those who just want that option. In an ideal world both would be privatized.....but we know the government isn't going to let that happen.

Why will roads benefit us the most and transit won't? A Heavy Rail line has a theoretical capacity of 40,000 people per hour, a highway has a maximum capacity of about 2,000 cars per hour which really means about 2,000 people per hour. Why is spending more money to build less capacity the place that will benefit us more?

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by PJA

But since the government insists on continuing to tax us, I would rather most of those taxes go to where it will benefit the most.

Attitudes like this keep waste growing: "We can't cut tax spending for what I want".

Besides if only some can afford a car but everyone can afford transit should we be spending tax dollars making sure everyone has transit access instead of roads since it will benefit more people based on your flawed logic?

[cwkimbro]

Originally Posted by Tito_d

Can work be organized differently so that people do not have to travel daily, can we encourage larger companies to have satellite campuses, more-telework, and other initiatives that will help people limit long commutes.

Short answer.... yes, but we've been working on this rather aggressively since the 90s.

There has been changes to how the region treats zoning and encouragement over job placement and that is why so many jobs are going to the suburbs.

The issue here is companies operate more efficiently having most people together. Most times their are satellite offices it is a single division type that can operate independently either, so people can't self-select into the satellite office or central office.

Realistically we are encouraging some companies to be on some areas and others to be in different areas. Some companies will always demand the most central location.

Even with the increase of suburban offices, there is always people who change jobs or have a spouse that works somewhere else. It also creates and atmosphere where our suburb has a suburb.

However, it works better than the alternative. This is the only reason we were able to handle our growth in the last 90s and early 2000's with limited transportation investment.

[PJA]

Originally Posted by MattCW

That's your loss, enjoy being stuck in traffic burning gas money. MARTA can't do anything about problems if they aren't told about them. If a drunk guy barged into your car would you not use your car anymore because you don't want to tell the police there's a problem?

Why will roads benefit us the most and transit won't? A Heavy Rail line has a theoretical capacity of 40,000 people per hour, a highway has a maximum capacity of about 2,000 cars per hour which really means about 2,000 people per hour. Why is spending more money to build less capacity the place that will benefit us more?

Because everybody isn't going to use mass transit. You assume that just because they build an extensive mass transit system, that everyone will use that. Yet in NYC, which has the best public transit, people still sit in traffic why.....because they prefer driving.

[PJA]

Originally Posted by jsvh

Attitudes like this keep waste growing: "We can't cut tax spending for what I want".

Besides if only some can afford a car but everyone can afford transit should we be spending tax dollars making sure everyone has transit access instead of roads since it will benefit more people based on your flawed logic?

Its not about what I want...its about what will benefit the most. Since more people drive and prefer to drive...that's where the money should go.

[cwkimbro]

Originally Posted by MattCW

A Heavy Rail line has a theoretical capacity of 40,000 people per hour, a highway has a maximum capacity of about 2,000 cars per hour which really means about 2,000 people per hour. Why is spending more money to build less capacity the place that will benefit us more?

Just to expand and prevent confusion....

That is 2,000 cars per lane per hour.

It is realistically closer to 1,800 and the number dips from increases merging, freeway design, and when traffic is too congested. This was suppose to be the purpose of the HOT lanes....maintain 1,800 cars at peaks hours no matter how congested it gets.

As far as spending.... roads and freeways are cheaper at meeting demand...at first.

The cost of implementing each extra lane goes up.

[erick295]

Originally Posted by AnsleyPark

Speaking of car dependent. Took MARTA from airport to doraville last night. The drunk man got in the train and talked loudly and sang the entire trip. Some folks cussed at him. Very pleasant.

I will take my car any day.

Amen brother! Those folks are such a nuisance. Subways are famous for that kind of thing but I can't think of a single example of an intoxicated person hurting someone on the road. NOT ONE. I'd much rather be in my car where I'm safe from hearing them talk.

[Gulch]

Originally Posted by erick295

Amen brother! Those folks are such a nuisance. Subways are famous for that kind of thing but I can't think of a single example of an intoxicated person hurting someone on the road. NOT ONE. I'd much rather be in my car where I'm safe from hearing them talk.

I guess you don't count drunk drivers killing people as "hurting someone on the road."

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by PJA

Its not about what I want...its about what will benefit the most. Since more people drive and prefer to drive...that's where the money should go.

I think most prefer not to drive if they had a viable alternative.

Besides, wouldn't more people prefer mansions and ice cream than sitting in traffic? Lets divert our tax dollars there.

This of course is all ridiculous, and just goes to point out how we should let people make their own decisions with how to spend their transportation dollars directly. The best way we can improve life is reducing the subsidies for roads and give people the choice how their dollar is spent instead of it being a government decision.

[AnsleyPark]

Originally Posted by erick295

Amen brother! Those folks are such a nuisance. Subways are famous for that kind of thing but I can't think of a single example of an intoxicated person hurting someone on the road. NOT ONE. I'd much rather be in my car where I'm safe from hearing them talk.

Good sarcasm! But, nonetheless, I'll drive from now on.