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.
Of course lanes are not the only factor determining highway usage. But it is a factor. People will consider other alternative (routes or modes) if there is too much congestion. And there will always be a shortage of something you give away for free.
The point is, there is not enough demand for this section to be widened. It's users aren't will to directly pay for it. This money should be spent on other things.
If you want to keep driving on this road, great. Just pay for it directly and stop trying to encourage people to drive who would rather not.
So, you're saying that people would rather fly, but because there's an extra lane here, they are pretty much forced to drive? If you'd rather not drive, then don't drive.
Yeah, I think we've jumped the shark. This is starting to sound almost paranoid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cqholt
I would be OK, with an agreement that once this section is widened to 6 lanes, that no more lanes are added and instead GDOT looks into investing into the intercity/HSR along this corridor. 6 lanes does help with the amount of traffic between the metros, but investments in rail should be looked at too.
Perfectly reasonable. Outside of major metro areas, I don't know of any interstates that are more than 6 lanes. This is outside of a major metro area. It shouldn't need to be wider than 6.
So, I should decide for myself whether the road I'm driving on should be wider? And if I think it should be wider, then what?
Yep. The same way you decide if an area needs more hotel rooms and decide what what foods a grovery store will offer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1
You do realize there is far more to these decisions than "how much does it cost me", right? For a trip of 200 miles, I can either drive there in three hours, or I can spend that same amount of time going to an airport, going through security, waiting forever, dealing with idiot travelers, and then having to figure out local transportation at my destination. I generally won't fly to a destination that is under 6-8 hours drive time, unless I will not be going anywhere at the destination.
Again, for the billionth time...MARTA is not sufficient for 95% of trips. You could make MARTA free and charge me $20 per car trip, and I would still have to make the car trip.
Then drive. No one is trying to deny you that choice. Just stop trying to make me pay so much for your trip. All roads aren't going to disappear just because users start paying for them directly. In fact, it will even help drivers by getting rid of traffic congestion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1
So, you aren't worried about taxes being spent (and given to corporations). You just want users to also directly pay for things, using incredibly inefficient tolling, because...well, I guess because you want to stick it to them for not doing things your way.
No, I oppose those targeted corporate tax breaks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1
I can think of no worse hell than having to consistently stop and pay fees everywhere I go and for everything I do. Forget about the money, it's the sheer annoyance of having to stop and deal with all that. You call that freedom, somehow. I call that hell.
I am not sure I can help you there. That is just the way things work in America. Wake up, put on the clothes you paid for, pay for coffee, pay to get to work, pay for lunch, pay to go to the movies, ect ect.
Maybe you can find some "freedom" in Venezuela. Might be about your last option, the soviet bread lines are gone. For some reason, the government just giving away what people want is just results in long lines and is not a sustainable system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1
I'm also curious...how much do you want to toll? Just major interstates? All highways? Arterial roads? Local roads? Neighborhood roads? The Silver Comet? The Beltline? Sidewalks? Bike lanes? How far are you willing to go? How much do you think the general public would support and desire this?
Major interstates. Maybe eventually arterial roads / anything with a faster than 25mph design speed. Local roads will likely always make sense to be mostly funded more by property taxes as they will not be practical for regional uses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1
Not nearly to the amount you seem to think. As I said, in 15 pages of discussion, only two people think the way you do.
No, they just don't feel a need to chime in these petty arguments. Many of them are too busy making this stuff happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1
I didn't say or imply anything of the sort. I said that not making the road work better for its current demand is dumb because the alternative methods are not sufficient. I have no idea where on earth you got that I think the alternative is removing everything else.
But at what cost? How do you know that widening the road is the best use of that money? Why not use that money to invest in real alternatives instead of just widening a road that will still fill with traffic and become just as congested as today?
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1
Wait...do you think that people don't actually want all those amenities, and would rather pay fees, and that the market will soon show that?
Correct. Those amenities are not free. They come at an additional cost some where or in exchange for amenities such as location.
Just like if we get rid of the laws requiring parking to be provided, many businesses will choose to offer lower prices or a better location instead of that parking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1
And most of them have extensive transit systems that were built long ago. Build those, which will take decades at best, and we can talk about losing some roads. But, you can't just stop spending on roads or keeping roads up to demand while you spend decades building out your transit. We voted on a huge transit initiative several years ago. I was a huge proponent of it, but it got defeated handily because it "wasn't good enough". With that mentality, we will likely never get much going here. An extra lane on one freeway to bring it up to need is a very small project in the grand scheme of things.
Glad our leaders don't think the same way you do. There will never be enough transit alternatives to satisfy people like you. Density comes first. Wider freeways only hurts that effort more.
Funny how that argument only seems to apply to the things you personally dislike, in areas you don't live.
I haven't seen you saying that all public tax funding should be permanently cut off for MARTA, since 95% of the people paying for it aren't ever using it. Shouldn't that be funded completely by user fees (huge fare increases), by the people who are using it? Or is that different, because jsvh really likes transit?
You say that the roads only exist because of government subsidies, OK, so doesn't that also apply to transit? You'd think MARTA would be profitable and sustainable with zero sales tax funding subsidizing it?
I-85 is a public asset, it's a public good. We all benefit from it, one way or another, directly or indirectly. Same thing with MARTA. Road projects and other transportation projects (like commuter rail), should be paid for by our collective taxes. Now, it sucks that we're neglecting putting in some commuting alternatives to roads, but at least we're expanding the roads. It's better than lack of economic growth, because of lack of public infrastructure investment, because of lack of taxes. Because that's basically the alternative.
Highways are not "public goods". There are lots of academic papers you can read on the matter if you would like.
Here is one that also references multiple others that all have the same conclusion: http://myweb.fsu.edu/bbenson/HIGHWAYS.pdf
(spoiler: roads are never "public goods" but can be "club goods, private goods, or common pools, depending on the institutional arrangement that exists")
And yes, I do oppose subsidies for transit too. But I understand why some people want to support that more since it is a greener, healthier, more sustainable option that can move a lot more people. But I'd privatize MARTA too if it was up to me.
If we were able to create a fictional world without and transportation subsidies, private transit companies would thrive and we would have a lot more transportation options than we have now.
Of course I am a realist and know that some transportation subsidies will exist, so our focus should be scaling back the subsidies that encourage more driving since they are the largest amount and do the most harm.
Why discourage driving? Some of you have this anti-sprawl attitude yet you live in your walkable neighborhoods. In that case, why try to force your opinions on others? You have what you want, no?
Why discourage driving? Some of you have this anti-sprawl attitude yet you live in your walkable neighborhoods. In that case, why try to force your opinions on others? You have what you want, no?
I am mostly concerned with not encouraging more driving.
The main reason is because people deserve a fair choice. But there are a lot of practical reasons. Alternatives to driving are greener, healthier, and capable of moving more people. Also, it is simply impossible for everyone to get around a city with as many people as Atlanta only by car.
I am fine with sprawl existing, I just don't think my tax dollars should go towards encouraging more of it (where possible).
Why discourage driving? Some of you have this anti-sprawl attitude yet you live in your walkable neighborhoods. In that case, why try to force your opinions on others? You have what you want, no?
The answer is simple.
Things aren't as perfect as they say, they want further investment for their causes for the progress of their own property values and agends and don't care about the costs to others.
They're completely willing to ignore that fact that the most efficient and least subsidized options are what they don't like and the most subsidized options are what they like. They don't mind that one has an indirect user fee scheme that pays for the majority of what it is and they have to mostly rests their arguments on the fact that local governments must pay for streets and public right of ways, which that would still need to do in the most pro-transit/anti-freeway society, even that is mostly paid for by property owners.
They're pushing an agenda so hard they are being foolish and blind to reality, but even worse is they are making enemies, pushing away moderates, and are failing to learn much about the large world outside a few small suburban, intown neighborhoods
sedimenjerry - It doesn't matter if the highway is 100% commuters or 100% long-distance travlers (obviously it is a mix of both), either way it is still encouraging more people to drive on that section of road than would otherwise.
And no, you don't get to keep acting like the choice is between widening this road with tax dollars or no cars ever. My stance has never been that we need to get rid of all cars ever.
I have never stated or even implied such a thing and this is the second time you've accused me of saying that. You seriously need to stop putting words in my mouth.
Also, just think for a minute. Who do you think is even going to know that I 85 has been widened? The people that driving it for the first time or the ones that drive that route often? I've known every construction project Alabama has done with I 20 since about 2004. I was driving that route anyway. Nothing would've swayed me to drive more or less. There's no other route to Birmingham. Fly? Yea right, my final destination has never been Bham anyway. Train? Not doing Amtrak outside of the NE ever again. Seriously, unless they're frequent drivers anyway, no one is going to even know until they drive it or maybe if they heard it from someone.
sedimenjerry, I keep saying "no one is taking away cars" because you keep going on these long rants about how other options won't work for you. That is fine. Keep on driving man. Just pay up.
Of course it seems like cwkimbro is just going to answer for me so you might want to wait for his answer.
sedimenjerry, I keep saying "no one is taking away cars" because you keep going on these long rants about how other options won't work for you. That is fine. Keep on driving man. Just pay up.
Of course it seems like cwkimbro is just going to answer for me so you might want to wait for his answer.
You've given me nothing to answer jsvh that I haven't already mentioned, while in the mean time you have yet to address the majority of everything I have said in this thread....
Pick and choose that one sentence you want to reply to .... It's your M-O on here
cwkimbro, If you don't have anything else to add to the conversation there is no need to reply.
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.
