U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 07-15-2015, 12:52 AM
 
Location: Prescott, AZ
5,554 posts, read 3,043,942 times
Reputation: 2254

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by cwkimbro View Post
Well the locally preferred alternative is a federal definition and is required to access federal funds in certain circumstances. It doesn't necessarily mean that the locals in that immediate neighborhood got together and said.... yes, that one.

Rather it means the local and regional government officials (in the eyes of the federal government) came up required alternatives and researched all the cost and comparison metrics and then picked. A part of that process tries to get feedback from actual local people and it was in this instance.
Thanks for the info, this clears up some stuff I was misinformed about!

Quote:
I will also say in this case they were persuaded not to pursue any alternatives into Decatur a bit too easily and looked for alternative options over minor concerns.


Now I don't want to have too adamant of an opinion against this, in the sense that for the time being I don't live in a MARTA service area for the time being. However this does affect how I feel Gwinnett joining, because this is the politics we are joining into.

But still what you're saying makes sense. It is also a part of the problem I'm trying to spot out.

It would be a regional system we are joining into. The thoughts and feelings of locals are important, but the more hyper-local we make the decision-making, the more it might not make sense for a regional system.

We'd also be joining a service area where another project in another area costs more, because those locals were more adamant about a more expensive option to add track mileage to support local redevelopment when the cheaper option also better for regional connectivity that could affect some people traveling to and from our area.

I also don't want to re-hash any old T-Splost debates, because most people have negative feelings over it from other projects across the region -they don't like-. There was something for everyone to hate.

But it wasn't lost to me that Gwinnett, had it been voted in, was ending up with less than its fair share of funds. Other areas were getting more than their fair share and still had sizable populations upset they weren't getting a really large project. To a large extent this was Dekalb. They had two really high cost projects in two different parts of the county to only be carried by one 10 years tax.

So the big concern I have, is what keeps this from happening going into the future when we produce so much revenue and I see how costs are quickly added to projects elsewhere?
This is a fair concern, and really I can only see one way to mitigate it, and it was actually part of the Clayton deal. Contractually obligate MARTA to deliver certain things within a timeline as part of the county joining. If that contract is not met, nor sufficiently on the way to being met, then MARTA is to return the money. Or something similar.

Point is, there are ways to ensure that Gwinnett gets its value from paying into MARTA, without choking other projects out of the added revenues from the county. After all, part of joining the regional transit organization is you are helping to improve the region as a whole, not just your corner of it.

Any other projects anywhere else, including Gwinnett, would be up for general funds. That is a risk that would need to be discussed and considered as a project by project basis, since what may not benefit Gwinnett directly, might have spin off benefits for the county.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-15-2015, 05:34 AM
 
Location: Kirkwood
23,393 posts, read 17,568,631 times
Reputation: 5423
Put a non-binding vote to the citizens.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2015, 06:02 AM
 
Location: North Atlanta
5,435 posts, read 3,836,060 times
Reputation: 2974
Quote:
Originally Posted by cqholt View Post
Put a non-binding vote to the citizens.
That was already done in 2008.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2015, 07:32 AM
bu2
 
10,002 posts, read 6,441,414 times
Reputation: 4156
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwkimbro View Post
Well the locally preferred alternative is a federal definition and is required to access federal funds in certain circumstances. It doesn't necessarily mean that the locals in that immediate neighborhood got together and said.... yes, that one.

Rather it means the local and regional government officials (in the eyes of the federal government) came up required alternatives and researched all the cost and comparison metrics and then picked. A part of that process tries to get feedback from actual local people and it was in this instance.

I will also say in this case they were persuaded not to pursue any alternatives into Decatur a bit too easily and looked for alternative options over minor concerns.



To add to this on the Clifton Corridor:
The original direction they were leaning was HRT using RR ROW to connect to East Lake. They got pushback from people backing to that rail line and very quickly dropped ROW that had been talked about for over 40 years. This original design would have helped serve the two outside areas making the most trips-from Gwinnett and from SE DeKalb.

They came up with an HRT stub from Lindberg to near Clairmont and N. Decatur as their preference, but got pushback from the people who live along the RR tracks between Lindberg and Emory against HRT.

So as they did their final analysis, the LRT option cost less and the HRT cost much more and made LRT in streets the LPA. Seems pretty coincidental to me. I know the massive number of assumptions that get made in these types of analysis.

When I went to the meeting presenting the LPA for the environmental study, I didn't talk to anyone there who wasn't opposed to it (other than the MARTA people). Most were people who lived along the route and didn't want it in their backyard-LRT, HRT, any of it. Several had recently moved in and hadn't heard of the project before. Nearly everyone shared my concern about grid-locking the streets when it didn't run on its own ROW.

As they have developed the project, they keep adding tunneling and overhead stretches and have dramatically increased the cost of this LRT.

I don't think Decatur itself wanted the LRT, so they have run it around Decatur to Avondale while servicing DeKalb Medical Center. There is a county health clinic and some low rise offices in the vicinity as well. So they are serving some needed destinations, in addition to it being a potential development area.

They have gotten feedback and reacted to some of it. But it is a MARTA project that gets input, not a publically driven project that MARTA coordinates.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2015, 07:51 AM
 
Location: Kirkwood
23,393 posts, read 17,568,631 times
Reputation: 5423
Quote:
Originally Posted by bu2 View Post
To add to this on the Clifton Corridor:
The original direction they were leaning was HRT using RR ROW to connect to East Lake. They got pushback from people backing to that rail line and very quickly dropped ROW that had been talked about for over 40 years. This original design would have helped serve the two outside areas making the most trips-from Gwinnett and from SE DeKalb.

They came up with an HRT stub from Lindberg to near Clairmont and N. Decatur as their preference, but got pushback from the people who live along the RR tracks between Lindberg and Emory against HRT.

So as they did their final analysis, the LRT option cost less and the HRT cost much more and made LRT in streets the LPA. Seems pretty coincidental to me. I know the massive number of assumptions that get made in these types of analysis.

When I went to the meeting presenting the LPA for the environmental study, I didn't talk to anyone there who wasn't opposed to it (other than the MARTA people). Most were people who lived along the route and didn't want it in their backyard-LRT, HRT, any of it. Several had recently moved in and hadn't heard of the project before. Nearly everyone shared my concern about grid-locking the streets when it didn't run on its own ROW.

As they have developed the project, they keep adding tunneling and overhead stretches and have dramatically increased the cost of this LRT.

I don't think Decatur itself wanted the LRT, so they have run it around Decatur to Avondale while servicing DeKalb Medical Center. There is a county health clinic and some low rise offices in the vicinity as well. So they are serving some needed destinations, in addition to it being a potential development area.

They have gotten feedback and reacted to some of it. But it is a MARTA project that gets input, not a publically driven project that MARTA coordinates.
Avondale sees a lot of bus connections and is large enough to become a major transfer station. Decatur has the current bus loop, which is overcrowded currently with buses and has congestion on it's downtown streets. Running LRT thru the streets and having it stop, operator switch cabs, and continue in the opposite direction.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2015, 11:40 AM
 
Location: O4W
3,744 posts, read 3,710,328 times
Reputation: 2059
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gulch View Post
That was already done in 2008.
Yeah with no guarantee of heavy rail or even a map of proposed Gwinnett Marta stops so that really doesn't count
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2015, 11:54 AM
 
Location: Prescott, AZ
5,554 posts, read 3,043,942 times
Reputation: 2254
Quote:
Originally Posted by afdinatl View Post
Yeah with no guarantee of heavy rail or even a map of proposed Gwinnett Marta stops so that really doesn't count
Well, they had the 2007 HRT Gold Line extension study up to Gwinnett Place...
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2015, 01:05 PM
 
Location: Kirkwood
23,393 posts, read 17,568,631 times
Reputation: 5423
Quote:
Originally Posted by fourthwarden View Post
Well, they had the 2007 HRT Gold Line extension study up to Gwinnett Place...
What is wrong with that study for a vote? How much further north could HRT go? Gwinnett Arena?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2015, 01:20 PM
 
Location: North Atlanta
5,435 posts, read 3,836,060 times
Reputation: 2974
Quote:
Originally Posted by cqholt View Post
What is wrong with that study for a vote? How much further north could HRT go? Gwinnett Arena?
Nothing. The 2008 vote was simply a non-binding referendum on "rail transit" in Gwinnett (it wasn't specifically "Do you want MARTA here?")
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2015, 05:33 PM
 
Location: Atlanta, Birmingham, Charlotte, and Raleigh
2,502 posts, read 1,621,790 times
Reputation: 1519
Quote:
Originally Posted by bu2 View Post
Gwinnett is the best run school system and best run county government. They keep getting elected because of that. That's kind of the definition of in touch. The definition of in touch doesn't mean agreeing with what city of Atlanta residents want for Gwinnett.
The school district ran by a different, independently elected board than the county commission, so what does that have to do with the Gwinnett County Commission. Best ran government, that's debatable considering they have just as many commissioners that have wind up in prison as Dekalb County. Finally, who said this is the City of Atlanta residents pushing this? Nobody, so you might want to look at whom is pushing this...Gwinnett County residents and commuters. You are bloviating about nothing because Gwinnett is basically a slightly condensed version of suburban sprawl with a few town centers.
Quick reply to this message
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 update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top