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 07-07-2018, 02:33 PM
 
28,528 posts, read 25,273,505 times
Reputation: 9817

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsvh View Post
Whine all you want about MARTA subsidies and theorizing how ridiculously high they might be. I am not asking for MARTA to get them. And they are not a valid excuse for road's massive subsidies and policy favoritism.

You fear that policy favoritism & subsidies going away because you know they are required to support the car dependant culture you are pedaling.

These $15 MARTA fare theories are getting increasingly ridiculous. Like I said above, if MARTA really does have to charge that then it deserves to fail. If people have real tolls they have to pay when weighing their commute options there will be a plethora of private transportation options that will pop up regardless of MARTA subsidies.
So if we moved to a strictly user-based (toll) system, we'd do away with the gas tax and the MARTA sales tax?

 
Old 07-07-2018, 02:40 PM
 
10,142 posts, read 7,137,613 times
Reputation: 3132
Quote:
Originally Posted by arjay57 View Post
So if we moved to a strictly user-based (toll) system, we'd do away with the gas tax and the MARTA sales tax?
(Assuming transit companies are also getting a level playing field policy-wise as well) I am fine with that.
 
Old 07-07-2018, 07:25 PM
 
Location: Atlanta
1,843 posts, read 2,066,718 times
Reputation: 2041
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsvh View Post
We not only can scrap the gas tax, we will have to. It is not sustainable in the long run as we switch to alternative fuel vehicles anyways.

But as I have been saying, roads / highways have been overbuilt and are not able to fund themselves and that level of subsidies cannot continue.

The solution is not for the urban areas to keep subsidizing the over-built suburban and rural road networks, but downsize the overbuilt road networks.

This is something that is becoming broadly realized. The massive subsidies for the sprawling road network is not sustainable.

Iowa DOT Chief: The system is going to shrink

The Un-paving of American Roads

Most rural small towns were historically walk-able nodes centered around a rail station. We need to (and will have to) get back to more that model for rural small towns.
Those rail stations were 1 per city for service between cities, so stupid comparison.

The US and world populations will grow to 12 billion before levelling off.

So with half of our traffic now comprised of delivering food, goods, packages, you think fewer hard surfaced roads is feasible.

Atlanta has one of the most UNDERBUILT road networks of all major cities.


No parallel alternatives is why traffic is so bad.

PLEASE BREAKDOWN EVERY ROAD SUBSIDY FROM ALL SOURCES. How does the city subsidize roads?

They have been studying other ways to collect fair fuel taxes for maintenance for a decade. Oregon did the VMT mileage trial.

So gas tax is falling short due to not being adjusted to inflation because of spineless politicians, and that's why we should do like dying rural areas in Iowa and return roads to unpaved?

What is so evil about a hard-surface road? Do you approve of gravel or dirt roads"


Do you approve of a path or should trees reclaim them?


It's asinine to talk about roads in the national scope, when they're used by people at the microlevel.

I agree that roads shouldn't keep getting built without life time maintenance costs part of the equation.

But roads are economic engines, lifelines, saviors of places all over the world.

US401 is finally getting divided to 4 lane highway for the 25 miles from my destitute home town to Raleigh, and in 5 years money, industry, starbucks, housing will usher in a new prosperity for my county.

Growth can be horrible and it also could possibly be done right, but it's all riding on that highway's fast travel time and cars and trucks being able to get around each other unlike the 2 lane highway being replaced.

They facilitate industry and jobs to come to places that direly need opportunity.


Rail lines built to the level needed to replace cars would take 100 years and 100 trillion dollars.


Fixed lines without freedom of movement would suffer from crowds of thousands at stations, and when the next disease pandemic arrives no one could avoid it.


Your food, clothes, mattress, amazon package, REQUIRE ROADS!

Last edited by architect77; 07-07-2018 at 07:34 PM..
 
Old 07-07-2018, 07:31 PM
 
4,500 posts, read 2,983,586 times
Reputation: 2949
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsvh View Post
(Assuming transit companies are also getting a level playing field policy-wise as well) I am fine with that.
Can you explain what policies you refer to?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsvh View Post
Sam clearly thinks he knows MARTA's books better than MARTA. He does not.
I put forth the numbers they have available in their official budget book, then said "I don't know how they derive that 3.50 number". With an average trip of $4.06, they'd need 645,117 trips per day. Even at $1 each, that comes to $235.5 million, FAR more than passenger revenue. There is an extreme disconnect between these numbers. The only way that $3.53 number works out is if the majority of riders make 3-5 transfers every trip.

Quote:
Whine all you want about MARTA subsidies and theorizing how ridiculously high they might be. I am not asking for MARTA to get them. And they are not a valid excuse for road's massive subsidies and policy favoritism.

You fear that policy favoritism & subsidies going away because you know they are required to support the car dependent culture you are pedaling.

And yes, MARTA bus ridership costs are higher than rail. MARTA needs to cut those low-frequency, low ridership, winding bus routes first.

These $15 MARTA fare theories are getting increasingly ridiculous. Like I said above, if MARTA really does have to charge that then it deserves to fail. If people have real tolls they have to pay when weighing their commute options there will be a plethora of private transportation options that will pop up regardless of MARTA subsidies.
This post is so ridiculous and completely ignores all the sources and evidence provided. You are choosing to ignore reality to subscribe to an agenda based on false information that you have made up to support it. Not much more I can do about that. I've done my time and provided official sources and evidence to back it up. If you want to be taken seriously, use actual facts. Until then, you are on an island.

Quote:
Originally Posted by architect77 View Post
No parallel alternatives is why traffic is so bad.
Well, that and the fact that many of our interstates are so poorly designed that bottlenecks are considered a feature.

Quote:
They have been studying other ways to collect fair fuel taxes for maintenance for a decade. Oregon did the VMT mileage trial.

So gas tax is falling short due to not being adjusted to inflation because of spineless politicians
Georgia raised its gas tax substantially a few years ago, then tied it to inflation.

Last edited by samiwas1; 07-07-2018 at 07:39 PM..
 
Old 07-07-2018, 08:22 PM
 
10,142 posts, read 7,137,613 times
Reputation: 3132
Quote:
Originally Posted by architect77 View Post
...
Rail will never replace cars / roads nor should we expect it to. But there is nothing wrong with unpaved roads if there is not enough demand to fund keeping them paved via direct funding / tolls.

All roads are not going to disappear ever. Heck, even wild animals will maintain paths on their own by simply walking down them regularly. Roads built by the Roman Empire are still around with basically no maintenance other than regular use. We need to move past this notion that the only two options are feeding into this continual highway growth Ponzi Scheme with billion dollar interchange re-builds every few years or no roads anywhere ever. That is a false choice.

In reality the only way to get manage traffic in a growing city is congestion tolls and giving people alternative options such as transit and walk-ability. Cities built on a perfect grid still have plenty of traffic. Cities with more highways still have plenty of traffic. Cities with giant 16+ laned highways still have plenty of traffic. More / wider freeways / roads are not a solution to anything except for how to increase the roadway budget to an unmanageable level.

Last edited by jsvh; 07-07-2018 at 08:50 PM..
 
Old 07-07-2018, 08:39 PM
 
10,142 posts, read 7,137,613 times
Reputation: 3132
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1 View Post
Can you explain what policies you refer to?
Policies are the bigger issue that supports / subsidizes car dependency and makes transit unprofitable more than anything else.

Start off with the original policies that sank private transit companies such as taxing them to pave streets for cars, having their RoW clogged up with cars / not granting them options of exclusive RoW, and setting price controls that deprived transit of revenues needed to continue to expand or even maintain it's existing network.

Then there are the bigger issues such as density limits and parking minimums that severely distort the market in favor of cars and harm transit competitiveness.

Then you have hundreds of modern regulations and requirements that are going to harm transit such as requiring them to operate para-transit service that while a very nice notion are some of the biggest money drains / sources of unprofitably for transit companies. Then there is the modern efforts to deny them exclusive RoW in favor of the insatiable demand for more and more car lanes. Plus the often political attempts to sink private transit companies and just general red tape governments large and small attempt to throw their way. Just look at the uproar and attempts to regulate these new micro transit companies with things like limiting the number of vehicles per block and other silly-ness.
 
Old 07-23-2018, 04:08 PM
 
10,142 posts, read 7,137,613 times
Reputation: 3132
Interesting article that talks a lot about Atlanta's future: The Future of the U.S. Looks a Lot Like Chicago

Quote:
...

That latter point is a cautionary tale for metros like Dallas, Houston and Atlanta, all of which will have more than 6 million people in a few years. Early-stage growth is a lot easier and happier than the costs associated with sustainability. While those large Sun Belt metros aren’t in cold weather regions and aren’t reliant on factory jobs like Chicago was a century ago, they do have growth and demographic patterns that could become cause for concern.

These metros have boomed in large part because they offered cheap, brand-new suburban single-family homes in the late 20th century. In large part that meant white families buying affordable brand-new single-family homes in communities with new infrastructure and low taxes. We haven’t yet seen if those communities remain sustainable as those families age and move on, the housing stock and infrastructure ages, and taxes go up as governments need to spend more on maintenance.

We’ve seen nationally that the combination of declining economic fortunes and growing racial diversity can create a toxic political environment. Take Cobb County, Georgia, the suburban county that Newt Gingrich represented in Congress for years. Over the past 20 years, the white population in its public school system has fallen by a third. Over the same period, the black and Hispanic population in the system has almost tripled. In 2016, this district voted for Hillary Clinton for president, reversing a long period of Republican dominance. What happens when Cobb and other counties like it transition over from largely homogenous white Republican-dominated counties to diverse, Democratic-leaning counties with growing costs from suburban poverty and aging infrastructure? Will they still be destinations of choice, or will they be avoided for more affluent urban cores or newer places in other metro areas?

...
 
Old 07-23-2018, 05:17 PM
 
1,916 posts, read 1,650,456 times
Reputation: 1765
Again, no facts just vague

Quote:
could become cause for concern.
Quote:
We haven’t yet seen if those communities remain sustainable
Quote:
What happens when Cobb and other counties like it transition
Quote:
Will they still be destinations of choice
 
Old 07-23-2018, 06:42 PM
 
10,142 posts, read 7,137,613 times
Reputation: 3132
Quote:
Originally Posted by brown_dog_us View Post
Again, no facts just vague
There are plenty of facts. You just choose to avoid focusing on them.

Quote:
[Chicago has] overhang of pension and debt obligations to a high rate of unsolved crime.
Quote:
Chicago continues to add young, affluent households in its urban core,
Quote:
[Cobb Co] white population in its public school system has fallen by a third
Quote:
In 2016, this district voted for Hillary Clinton for president
 
Old 07-23-2018, 06:57 PM
 
28,528 posts, read 25,273,505 times
Reputation: 9817
A couple of points from the Bloomberg article that caught my eye.

Quote:
These metros have boomed in large part because they offered cheap, brand-new suburban single-family homes in the late 20th century. In large part that meant white families buying affordable brand-new single-family homes in communities with new infrastructure and low taxes.
In the ATL, the suburban growth boom didn't just mean "white families buying affordable brand-new single-family homes." It also included a huge number of black families settling in the suburbs.

It's surprising that the author isn't aware of that, or chose to ignore it.

Quote:
We’ve seen nationally that the combination of declining economic fortunes and growing racial diversity can create a toxic political environment. Take Cobb County, Georgia, the suburban county that Newt Gingrich represented in Congress for years. Over the past 20 years, the white population in its public school system has fallen by a third. Over the same period, the black and Hispanic population in the system has almost tripled. In 2016, this district voted for Hillary Clinton for president, reversing a long period of Republican dominance. What happens when Cobb and other counties like it transition over from largely homogenous white Republican-dominated counties to diverse, Democratic-leaning counties with growing costs from suburban poverty and aging infrastructure? Will they still be destinations of choice, or will they be avoided for more affluent urban cores or newer places in other metro areas?
And why the assumption that Cobb's "transition over from largely homogenous white Republican-dominated counties to diverse, Democratic-leaning counties" will lead to poverty, declining economic fortunes and undesirability?

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.

© 2005-2019, 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