MARTA to make an $8 billion pitch to change the face of Atlanta (Buckhead: dating, affordable)

[MattCW]

Originally Posted by jsvh

Matt,

I am happy to pay for products and services I recieve. You are the only one offering to support free loaders by giving out services to free to everyone including non-users & non-tax payers.

??? Wrong, I'm trying to ensure as many people that benefit from the service actually pay into it. You're the one whose ideology would create

I dont' call everything communism.

And yet...

But the only real option to a market based economy is a command based economy which is the signiture economic policy of communism. I do call out non-market solutions for what they are.

There is no such thing as a pure command-economy or pure-market economy. Maybe you should try studying economics even a little before making such silly comments.

Transportation infrastructure by definition is not a public good.

Factually incorrect.

Expecially once it gets to the point of congestion.

Congestion doesn't magically convert a public good into not a public good. Do you want to make the courts a non-public-good whenever they get backed up? The police a non-public good whenever they get swamped with calls? The schools when they get overcrowded?

That means it works best by having users pay for it.

If you agree with this, then why don't you want that?

There are plenty examples out there of the best transportation systems suceeding by charging users by what they use, and the failures not.

A few, and only in extremely dense areas like Singapore, and even they are heavily supported by other than transportation, namely real estate.

What is the best transit system that does not charge a fare that you can name?

No one ever said don't charge a fare.

[toll_booth]

Originally Posted by jsvh

Transportation infrastructure by definition is not a public good.

Wut.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by MattCW

There is no such thing as a pure command-economy or pure-market economy. Maybe you should try studying economics even a little before making such silly comments.

No one ever said don't charge a fare.

Then what are you arguing about?

Originally Posted by MattCW

If you agree with this, then why don't you want that?

I fully support users paying for the benefits they recieve. Again, what are you ranting about?

Originally Posted by MattCW

Factually incorrect.

Congestion doesn't magically convert a public good into not a public good. Do you want to make the courts a non-public-good whenever they get backed up? The police a non-public good whenever they get swamped with calls? The schools when they get overcrowded?

Since y'all are not even botherd to look up what a "public good" actually is, let me Google that for you:

a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous in that individuals cannot be effectively excluded from use and where use by one individual does not reduce availability to others.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good
Public Good Definition | Investopedia

So while some try to make a case that a free flowing road is a public good since it is non-rivalrous (I would not), as soon as you start to get to the point of congestion on that road it becomes rivalrous. But again, I would say it was not a public good the whole time. Especailly because cars are easily excludable with tolling systems. And transit is obvioulsly not a public good because fare gates make it excludable.

But something like a sidewalk or the Beltline is still a public good since you cannot effectively exclude people from use and will likely not reach the point of congestion that would prevent others from accessing it entierly.

So your confusion about things like education and law enforcement being public goods is valid too since, like transportation, there are certain cases where they could be considered public goods and certain times they are not.

So again, what are you arguing about? I support public funding for transportation, education, and law enforcement. I support wealth redistribution / public subsudies (in the form of a basic income) to provide even non-public-goods for everyone. But I think market based options such as private schools, private security, toll systems should not only be legal but encouraged in cases where you have non-public-goods and supply / demand disconnects (shortages, under-supply, over-supply, congestion). Do you disagree?

[fourthwarden]

So, for those, who like myself, have an unhealthy appreciation of MARTA and the city at large, I give you this shirt:



I saw someone wearing it while playing Board-games at Camille's in Little 5, and instantly loved it. Some quick googling took me to their web store, where, if I was not spending my father's money whenever I bought something, I would have bought it instantly.

[primaltech]

Um. Want.

Thank you, I want to get one.

[MattCW]

Originally Posted by jsvh

Then what are you arguing about?

Your belief that you can only have a communist or market economy with no middle ground

I fully support users paying for the benefits they recieve. Again, what are you ranting about?

Your posting history has made it clear that you do not. You wrongly define the users as only a very narrow subset of all users

Since y'all are not even botherd to look up what a "public good" actually is, let me Google that for you:


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good
Public Good Definition | Investopedia

So while some try to make a case that a free flowing road is a public good since it is non-rivalrous (I would not), as soon as you start to get to the point of congestion on that road it becomes rivalrous. But again, I would say it was not a public good the whole time. Especailly because cars are easily excludable with tolling systems. And transit is obvioulsly not a public good because fare gates make it excludable.

But something like a sidewalk or the Beltline is still a public good since you cannot effectively exclude people from use and will likely not reach the point of congestion that would prevent others from accessing it entierly.

If you had read your own link, you would have also read that a public good when it has congestion doesn't magically cease becoming a public good.

So your confusion about things like education and law enforcement being public goods is valid too since, like transportation, there are certain cases where they could be considered public goods and certain times they are not.

They either are, or they are not, they don't cease being a public good when it becomes inconvenient for them to be so.

So again, what are you arguing about? I support public funding for transportation, education, and law enforcement. I support wealth redistribution / public subsudies (in the form of a basic income) to provide even non-public-goods for everyone. But I think market based options such as private schools, private security, toll systems should not only be legal but encouraged in cases where you have non-public-goods and supply / demand disconnects (shortages, under-supply, over-supply, congestion). Do you disagree?

There's nothing illegal about private versions of those good, and no one is arguing that they should be illegal. You want to run your own transit system, go ahead, no one's stopping you.

[bu2]

Article about LA. Makes the point that multi-node employment centers work much better than single node.

Los Angeles: The Next Great Transit Metropolis? — Human Transit
....Los Angeles may still seem hopelessly car-dominated today, but it’s fortunate in its urban structure in ways that make it a smart long term bet as a relatively sustainable city, at least in transport terms. Two things in particular: (a) the presence of numerous major centres of activity scattered around the region, and (b) the regular grid of arterials, mostly spaced in a way that’s ideal for transit, that covers much of the city, offering the ideal infrastucture for that most efficient of transit structures: a grid network.

Because Los Angeles is a vast constellation of dense places, rather than just a downtown and a hinterland, it’s full of corridors where there is two-way all-day flow of demand, the ideal situation for cost effective, high quality transit. In this, Los Angeles is more like Paris than it is like, say, New York. Much of the core area between downtown and Santa Monica is covered by a braid of major boulevards, all with downtown at DSCN2425one end and the naturally dense coastal strip at the other, every one a potentially great transit market given appropriate protection from traffic.
....

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by bu2

Article about LA. Makes the point that multi-node employment centers work much better than single node.

Los Angeles: The Next Great Transit Metropolis? — Human Transit
....Los Angeles may still seem hopelessly car-dominated today, but it’s fortunate in its urban structure in ways that make it a smart long term bet as a relatively sustainable city, at least in transport terms. Two things in particular: (a) the presence of numerous major centres of activity scattered around the region, and (b) the regular grid of arterials, mostly spaced in a way that’s ideal for transit, that covers much of the city, offering the ideal infrastucture for that most efficient of transit structures: a grid network.

Because Los Angeles is a vast constellation of dense places, rather than just a downtown and a hinterland, it’s full of corridors where there is two-way all-day flow of demand, the ideal situation for cost effective, high quality transit. In this, Los Angeles is more like Paris than it is like, say, New York. Much of the core area between downtown and Santa Monica is covered by a braid of major boulevards, all with downtown at DSCN2425one end and the naturally dense coastal strip at the other, every one a potentially great transit market given appropriate protection from traffic.
....

Atlanta is multinodal like LA, but not nearly as dense. There success, could show us that rail transit connecting these nodes will work.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by cqholt

Atlanta is multinodal like LA, but not nearly as dense. There success, could show us that rail transit connecting these nodes will work.

The various employment nodes should be connected. The Airport, downtown, midtown, Buckhead and Perimeter Center are connected. Cumberland-Galleria and Emory/CDC are not. Development should be encouraged around dense nodes and not too spread out. The regional plan is based on the idea that people will live close to work and they are encouraging lots of little nodes all over the metro. I don't think that is realistic given people's employment mobility and the cost of moving.

[jsvh]

Matt, you are placing straw man views on me that I do not accept so you can keep your arguments going. I am going to go back to ignoring your radical views because I don't need to worry about them becoming reality here in Atlanta. Let this thread get back on topic.