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)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 11-24-2017, 02:57 PM
 
4,241 posts, read 2,827,187 times
Reputation: 2763

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by cqholt View Post
They make grocery carts, wagons, etc.
Or, OR...I could hop in my car, get there, do my shopping, and be back home and be back to my life before I could even make it to the store walking with my cart. And pushing a cart around is not much less physically tasking than carrying the bags, especially with the elevation in between. And, if it's cold, hot, raining, snowing, windy, or anything else...I don't have to deal with it.

Look, I'm really glad that you can just throw on a raincoat and be happy walking half a mile through the rain with your groceries when it's 40 degrees out, but that's just not a realistic expectation of most people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fourthwarden View Post
Only if they drove 30 miles from outside the perimeter. You would still have multiple options of transit, though, whether that be to take the Greenline down then transfer to a NW heavy rail line, or drive to a Perimeter BRT station and take the bus, or drive to a commuter rail station and take the train, or just take a local bus.
That's a LOT of extra work to just go a mile or two. Jesus. It's like you guys have literally nothing else going on in your lives.

Quote:
Except you would be getting help from everyone who commuted out of town to the suburbs, those who commute down into town, and even those just passing through but not stopping. Furthermore, you are only as impacted as you choose to be, in that you would have to weigh options about what makes more sense to you and your life trip wise. Maybe you don't need to drive to go to target. Maybe you don't need to go at all. Maybe you really need to go and it makes more sense to just pay the toll.
The Urbanist Dictionary:
Freedom (Free•dem) /ˈfrēdəm/
The act of now having to weigh a bunch of options which will likely take far longer, cost far more, or just make impractical what is now quick, easy, or no cost per use.
Quote:
No system is ever going to be 100% fair to all people all the time.
Except those bikers and walkers who get all these new facilities from the wallets of others.

Quote:
Well, just because we like something doesn't mean it is correct to keep it. Not when it could be objectively better in so many ways.
I'm thinking you don't truly understand what "objectively" means.

Quote:
ITP is a measly 3% of the metro area. I AM letting the suburbs be suburbs. 97% of the metro will not be included in the tolled area, and will be left to be as suburban as they want to be.
Sorry, but cutting off 250 square miles of the main part of the metro area is asinine in every way, and has no bearing in any sort of realistic thought process. Pickens county or the Alabama border need not be factored into these discussions just to attempt to make your point that "it's really not THAT much of the metro"

Quote:
If you actually bothered to read about the Growth Ponzie Scheme, or if you remembered past explanations, you'd know that suburban unsustainability is a long term problem that gives the illusion of success and functionality now, while setting itself up for a massive financial problem in a generation or two down the road. This is a reality that most towns are caught up in, and that many, many places are already feeling the effects of.

Suburbs do not work, we've just tricked ourselves into thinking they do.
That's how I feel about the stuff you push on here. You've been tricked into believing all this urbanist propaganda. They make it sound so right, so it must be right. That's why your posts sound almost word-for-word what these sources way.

Quote:
There, you've built transit alternatives before the tolls are put in.

Which is why we build them using the revenue from the tolls to fund them!

Why do I have to keep repeating this?
Because trying to deal with $30 billion worth of new transit based on paying for it with a hair-brained idea like tolling entries into the perimeter decades before that toll even takes effect to raise a dollar is a complete non-starter to anyone with two brain cells.

Quote:
As I already said, we need BOTH.
We need the transit. Make the transit pay for itself.

 
Old 11-24-2017, 03:43 PM
 
Location: Vinings
5,943 posts, read 2,913,549 times
Reputation: 3183
Here's an also-extreme and also-impossible tolling proposal I thought up, but I personally like it a lot better than the 285 proposal:

Permanently toll all freeways within the 10-county Atlanta region. All lanes of all freeways (except any isolated/disconnected freeways like Reagan Pkwy), all vehicles of all types (except registered transit), at all entry points to them everywhere in the 10-county ARC area, including driving in on the freeway from outside counties. It would not be congestion pricing, but just a simple all the time fixed toll ($5 would probably work). Paid by local commuters, and out of state travelers and passers-through alike. And you would't pay it at freeway-to-freeway interchanges, so once you paid your $5 to get on 85 for example, you wouldn't have to pay to get on 285 from there. (Free transfers.)

Then, part 2 of the plan, all the various HOV and Peach Pass and express lanes on said freeways (incl. the upcoming NW corridor lanes and 285 express lanes), would be $15 to access (still free for transit), or $10 to access if you're entering them from already being on the general freeway (already paid $5). With no HOV-restrictions, just tolled express lanes (for cars only, no freight of course). And they would be flex post barrier'd (except at entry/exit points), like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9618...7i13312!8i6656

And all collected toll money would be 100% allocated to transit expansion and maintenance, solely for use within the 10-county ARC area. Commuter rail, heavy rail, commuter bus, light rail, whatever is needed.

This plan would do the following:

1. It would raise all the money we need for regional transit. Billions and billions. And the best part, a lot of that would be paid by people that don't even live in GA, and interstate shipping companies and whatnot.

2. It would reduce the congestion on the freeways, maybe by 20% or so, making the freeways a lot more usable and useful, when we do need to drive on them.

3. It would heavily reduce the congestion in the express lanes system, making them very useful, at a hefty fee. Good for special occasions or personal emergencies or whatnot. Also that could be a great way for emergency vehicles to get around the metro. And of course, transit.

4. It would get a ton of people out of their cars (fourthwarden's goal), because commuter bus transit's usefulness would be triple-boosted (and that's even before any new funds or expansions.) The 3 boosts to the bus system would be: 1) If you park and ride the bus in, you don't have to pay the toll, 2) the freeway is less congested, 3) the express lane system (which would be barrier-separated from the regular lanes) would be even much less congested, yet just as free for buses to use.

5. There wouldn't be all the ridiculous local-punishment scenarios that I outlined above. Short distances would be exempt from a toll. The people paying the toll would be the people who are driving for miles, in any direction, from any location. Long-distance automobile commuters.

6. We could also potentially use the toll system as an incentive system to improve the world of cars, and our air quality and urban fabric and such. Like for example, make the toll only $2.50 ($7.50 express) for registered electric vehicles, lasting until the day when 75% of all cars in GA are electric. Or make it so that the toll is $2.50 ($7.50 express), for registered Uber/Lyft trips, until the day when ITP reduces # of parking spaces by 75% or whatever. Or whatever variation like that. Just throwing that out there.

The one downside would be maybe a slight increase of traffic on surface roads, but that would be a minor drawback compared to all of those advantages. And really, a bet a lot of people would start to regularly commute by transit.
 
Old 11-24-2017, 07:15 PM
 
Location: Prescott, AZ
5,405 posts, read 2,735,463 times
Reputation: 2164
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1 View Post
That's a LOT of extra work to just go a mile or two. Jesus. It's like you guys have literally nothing else going on in your lives.
Oh, a whole mile? Why not just walk? Two whole miles? Why not just bike? God forbid you take some time and enjoy the outside.

Don't want to do either of those? Then jump on one of the many buses that would be funded through toll revenue.

It's really not nearly as complicated as you try and frame it to be. Especially not with things like MARTA On The Go, which shows you real-time where your bus is.

Quote:
The Urbanist Dictionary:
Freedom (Free•dem) /ˈfrēdəm/
The act of now having to weigh a bunch of options which will likely take far longer, cost far more, or just make impractical what is now quick, easy, or no cost per use.
Take longer, unless it's rush hour. Cost more, except for the fact that auto-centric environments do not generate enough combined tax revenue to pay for themselves. Make impractical, except that all the roads are still there, just with a bunch of new options for you to use depending on the circumstances.

Also, are you literally arguing against more freedom with no real trade off in security or anything like that?

Quote:
Except those bikers and walkers who get all these new facilities from the wallets of others.
Unlike all the bikers and walkers and transit riders whose taxes already go to subsidizing roads that they don't use, nor damage any where near as much as cars?

Why is it such an awful concept to you to actively incentivize mobility options that are more financially beneficial, more space efficient, and more energy efficient? I at least recognize the benefits of funding things that are better from the impact fees on things that are worse.

Quote:
I'm thinking you don't truly understand what "objectively" means.
Which is rich coming from someone who not only just tried to use Urban Dictionary to make a point, but who has blatantly stated they don't care what the data says.

Quote:
Sorry, but cutting off 250 square miles of the main part of the metro area is asinine in every way, and has no bearing in any sort of realistic thought process. Pickens county or the Alabama border need not be factored into these discussions just to attempt to make your point that "it's really not THAT much of the metro"
Again, it's not 'cutting off' anything. 80% of entries are still going to occur, while massive amounts of new mobility options are funded to handle the majority of the 20% that was going to come in and stay in the first place, increasing network capacity and activity overall. There's a net increase in accessibility.

Literally, this is the exact opposite of 'cut off'.

Quote:
That's how I feel about the stuff you push on here. You've been tricked into believing all this urbanist propaganda. They make it sound so right, so it must be right. That's why your posts sound almost word-for-word what these sources way.
Yes. Tricked by all the real-world data and peer-reviewed analysis performed by reputable institutions of research. How could I be so gullible.

Maybe, juuuuust maybe my posts sound like them because I read them, considered their points, looked at their data, and am now using their findings as my own points because they have the data backing them up. After all, I wouldn't be saying the sun was a moon if the experts say it's a star just so I sound different than them.

Quote:
Because trying to deal with $30 billion worth of new transit based on paying for it with a hair-brained idea like tolling entries into the perimeter decades before that toll even takes effect to raise a dollar is a complete non-starter to anyone with two brain cells.
You... realize that that's literally how GA 400 was built, right? As in, we have an in-metro example of how to do this. GA 400 issued construction bonds to be paid off by the future, expected revenue of the toll. The road was then built, the tolls started, and revenue gathered. The bonds were then paid off by the toll revenue. Toll revenue, which, I will add, paid for the right of way for MARTA's Red Line.

Or just look at how any other high-capacity transit route is funded. You base the construction bonds issued on the projected revenue. You don't need to have collected much, or even any of the financing tax funds to issue the bonds, just to have a professionally done projection of revenue.

Heck, MARTA did some of this not too long ago with their 'Fast Track' bus system adjustments. Routes were changed and added according to the project list approved by voters before the tax came into effect. The funding for at least some of these changes came backed by the future tax revenue.

This isn't a novel, crazy thing at all. It's rather routine, actually.

Quote:
We need the transit. Make the transit pay for itself.
And you accused me of being a Republican in your last post with positions like this? Please.

This is just one more of your impossible ultimatums. We're supposed to somehow make transit financially-self sustaining while continuing to hyper-prioritize roads and personal vehicles. That's a real sound plan there, bucko.
 
Old 11-24-2017, 08:10 PM
 
28,148 posts, read 24,679,387 times
Reputation: 9544
Quote:
Originally Posted by primaltech View Post
Here's an also-extreme and also-impossible tolling proposal I thought up, but I personally like it a lot better than the 285 proposal:

Permanently toll all freeways within the 10-county Atlanta region. All lanes of all freeways (except any isolated/disconnected freeways like Reagan Pkwy), all vehicles of all types (except registered transit), at all entry points to them everywhere in the 10-county ARC area, including driving in on the freeway from outside counties. It would not be congestion pricing, but just a simple all the time fixed toll ($5 would probably work). Paid by local commuters, and out of state travelers and passers-through alike. And you would't pay it at freeway-to-freeway interchanges, so once you paid your $5 to get on 85 for example, you wouldn't have to pay to get on 285 from there. (Free transfers.).
The toll system they used for GA400 was excellent. It not only paid for the road itself in less than 20 years, it also guaranteed tons of income for other transportation projects.

It also kept at least something of a lid on traffic volumes.

And, it was relatively painless. Who can object to a .50 toll? Especially when it's doing all those good things.
 
Old 11-24-2017, 10:27 PM
 
4,241 posts, read 2,827,187 times
Reputation: 2763
Quote:
Originally Posted by primaltech View Post
Permanently toll all freeways within the 10-county Atlanta region. All lanes of all freeways (except any isolated/disconnected freeways like Reagan Pkwy), all vehicles of all types (except registered transit), at all entry points to them everywhere in the 10-county ARC area, including driving in on the freeway from outside counties. It would not be congestion pricing, but just a simple all the time fixed toll ($5 would probably work). Paid by local commuters, and out of state travelers and passers-through alike. And you would't pay it at freeway-to-freeway interchanges, so once you paid your $5 to get on 85 for example, you wouldn't have to pay to get on 285 from there. (Free transfers.)
Why don't we just build a yuge, big, beautiful wall around the state and have anyone passing through pay the toll? Or charge a $20 fee to every arriving airplane passenger at the busiest airport in the world

Quote:
Originally Posted by fourthwarden View Post
Oh, a whole mile? Why not just walk? Two whole miles? Why not just bike? God forbid you take some time and enjoy the outside.
Walking a mile to and from somewhere adds an extra half hour to the trip, minimum. I don't know about you, but life is quite busy with work and family. Taking an extra half hour out of my day is just not even remotely ideal. Plus, there's the fact that I just don't want to. I can jump in my car, and do the whole trip (including the shopping) in under 15 minutes. Why the eff would I want to make it a 45-minute trip just to "enjoy the outside"? I'd rather enjoy the outside on my back deck puffing on my hookah. Not walking down some street to a store a mile away. That is literally the last way I'd like to spend my time.

Quote:
Take longer, unless it's rush hour. Cost more, except for the fact that auto-centric environments do not generate enough combined tax revenue to pay for themselves. Make impractical, except that all the roads are still there, just with a bunch of new options for you to use depending on the circumstances.

Also, are you literally arguing against more freedom with no real trade off in security or anything like that?
No, I'm not. I'm saying you can have all those things. But trying to get others to pay for it for you is going to be a pretty tough sell.

Quote:
Unlike all the bikers and walkers and transit riders whose taxes already go to subsidizing roads that they don't use, nor damage any where near as much as cars?
If they ride on public roads, they are using those roads. Their taxes probably aren't going towards highways and interstates. Thus, they should see no benefit from the tolling of those things. You know, being objective of course, of course.

Quote:
Why is it such an awful concept to you to actively incentivize mobility options that are more financially beneficial, more space efficient, and more energy efficient? I at least recognize the benefits of funding things that are better from the impact fees on things that are worse.
You're not necessarily trying to incentivize one. You're trying to punish the other. You pretty much exactly said that when you stated: "We must...make these car-centric designs less viable". You want to do so by making it much more expensive to do. It's pretty much the "net neutrality" of transportation: "No, no...we want to incentivize the usage of our own product by making our competitor's product too slow and difficult to use!"

Quote:
Which is rich coming from someone who not only just tried to use Urban Dictionary to make a point,
I didn't use Urban Dictionary. I made all that up myself. And it's UrbanIST Dictionary in this case.

Quote:
but who has blatantly stated they don't care what the data says.
What I have blatantly, and explicitly stated is that data does not always impact ones' decision making. If there was data stating that listening to classical music makes you smarter and that heavy metal makes you an angry *******, do you really think that people who listen to heavy metal would say "Oh, man...the data says I should listen to classical music. So long guitar solos!" No. That's not how normal people are. You might live your life based solely on data and statistics, and analyze everything you do and say to make sure it meets stringent, peer-reviewed standards. But, as I've explained to you countless times, that is just not how most people live, and it's wholly unrealistic to expect anything different. This may frustrate you to no end, but maybe one day, you'll grow up and figure it out.

Quote:
Yes. Tricked by all the real-world data and peer-reviewed analysis performed by reputable institutions of research. How could I be so gullible.
Because any and all data can be manipulated into making whatever point you need it to make. How many people thought the economy drastically faltered from 2009-2017 and thus elected the buffoon we have now? A lot...because they were misled by "data".

For instance, in a recent discussion I had, someone claimed that one city in the US was more dangerous than another city, using the "real data" that far more people were killed there than in the other city. This, of course, didn't account for the difference in population. Using that same logic, we can point to the US body count of over 12,000 to the body count in El Salvador of just over 6,000 and say that the US is far more dangerous, even though the rate is El Salvador is 25 times that of the US. But, then just using rate, we could point out that Sutherland Springs, Texas is the most violent place in the world, with an intentional homicide rate of over 4,300 per 100,000 residents this year! All it takes is for someone to read enough manipulated data to get hooked. I don't know you. I don't know how gullible you are. I read some of your sources, and they just make me laugh.

Quote:
You... realize that that's literally how GA 400 was built, right? As in, we have an in-metro example of how to do this. GA 400 issued construction bonds to be paid off by the future, expected revenue of the toll. The road was then built, the tolls started, and revenue gathered. The bonds were then paid off by the toll revenue. Toll revenue, which, I will add, paid for the right of way for MARTA's Red Line.

This isn't a novel, crazy thing at all. It's rather routine, actually.
Thanks...I know what a construction bond is. Is it routine to the tune of $31 billion? That's a massive cost against a completely unfounded, untested, and unheard-of-in-history income stream (no, your London and Stockholm examples are barely relevant due to sheer size). How much did 400 cost? It was far and away paid for in less than 20 years with a 50-cent toll.

Quote:
This is just one more of your impossible ultimatums. We're supposed to somehow make transit financially-self sustaining while continuing to hyper-prioritize roads and personal vehicles. That's a real sound plan there, bucko.
It's funny how you guys say "the people on the roads should pay for their road use", then also say "the people on the roads should pay to build transit" and "the people on the roads should pay for our bike facilities" and "the people on bikes shouldn't have to pay anything for all their new facilities because they are more efficient". Your logic is all over the place to serve the agenda you want it to serve.

Of course, the first thing you'd have to get is the ability to toll the existing interstates. A fight you would almost certainly not win.
 
Old 11-24-2017, 10:48 PM
 
9,918 posts, read 6,909,650 times
Reputation: 3022
Groceries are not a valid reason to "need" a car. A $5 a week grocery delivery cost (same price as round trip transit fare) does not justify spending thousands of dollars a year on a car.

Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1 View Post
Why don't we just build a yuge, big, beautiful wall around the state and have anyone passing through pay the toll? Or charge a $20 fee to every arriving airplane passenger at the busiest airport in the world
No need for a wall. Electronic tolling & ticketing work just fine. If you want highways you got to pay for them.

And while some airports charge $20+ in fees per passenger, ATL only charges $2.86 and needs no additional outside tax funding to operate.
 
Old 11-25-2017, 06:56 AM
 
1,137 posts, read 475,434 times
Reputation: 870
Quote:
Originally Posted by fourthwarden View Post
I've already explained this a ton of times. Transit would be built and in place in time for the tolls to open. Period.
If that were the case, I wouldn't see the point or need to toll anyone as commuters would already have alternatives to the ITP highways thus already reducing the amount of ITP commuter traffic. I personally would have absolutely no issue with taking a train to go downtown if there was one available to me in Gwinnett - wouldn't have to worry about parking, wouldn't have to worry about traffic, and wouldn't need to worry about idiotic drivers on the highway. I don't think very many people will need to be "persuaded" to use transit options if they were efficient and available.

This toll to me sounds more like GADOT saying that we didn't fund or design an efficient transit system when we had the (several) opportunities to so we're going to make YOU pay for it....

Uhhhh... No...

Atlanta metro is approaching 7 Million people - Isn't no town anymore, this was all result of poor management and poor forsight of the future and likewise too many parties wanting their "own" agenda rather than the greater good for the city and its people (which I believe is the BIGGEST problem with Atlanta.) Here's what would really help... Lets start by actually doubling the funding that goes into GADOT ... Why? Oh because its absolutely pathetically low... Several states have a lower overall or similar population as the state of Georgia but maintain a fairly consistent (consistency meaning they are able to meet the demands of the public at a reasonable level) budget for their Department of Transportation and Transit...

We have the people, and taxes to easily carry GADOT .. .. so where's all the money going?... and these tolls are supposedly going to fix it all?...

No.
 
Old 11-25-2017, 06:57 AM
 
14,941 posts, read 26,661,283 times
Reputation: 18172
Ok, this has gotten too personal and not in the spirit of the TOS. This subject has run its course. Thread closed.
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.


Closed Thread


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.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

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