New lanes on I-285 top-end to cost $11B+. Enough to build 55 miles of MARTA rail. (Atlanta: construction, maintenance)

[jsvh]

https://twitter.com/atlurbanist/stat...010556417?s=20

http://documents.atlantaregional.com...0-%20FINAL.pdf

When federal funding is included the costs for the new lanes on I-285 top-end between I-75 and I-85 rises to over $11B. The previous (still stupid expensive) $5B estimate was only the state spending.

That is over $7K in tax spending for every household in metro Atlanta.

Or that is enough to build 55 miles of new MARTA rail. That would be enough to more than double MARTA's current ~48 mile system. (And that is assuming HRT at $200M a mile. The Downtown LRT only cost ~$30M a mile).

In addition, hundreds of tax paying properties along the route will be seized and bulldozed.

[citidata18]

Federal highways funds can't be re-allocated for other uses, by law.

[Gulch]

Originally Posted by citidata18

Federal highways funds can't be re-allocated for other uses, by law.

They can, but the funding has to be returned to FHWA first (see NYC's cancelled Westway project).

The state funding here (HB170) is also restricted to roads/bridges.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by citidata18

Federal highways funds can't be re-allocated for other uses, by law.

Sure it can. Change the law.

Or at least use the money for the needed maintenance of existing roads instead of further increasing future maintenance liability.

Or if not that, return the money to taxpayers.

Regardless, this is just yet another reminder that roads are more expensive and there is money for transit. We choose to make rules that forces it to go to subsidizing more roads instead.

[samiwas1]

Originally Posted by jsvh

Sure it can. Change the law.

Or at least use the money for the needed maintenance of existing roads instead of further increasing future maintenance liability.

Or if not that, return the money to taxpayers.

Regardless, this is just yet another reminder that roads are more expensive and there is money for transit. We choose to make rules that forces it to go to subsidizing more roads instead.

This is not a reminder that roads are more expensive. This one particular project apparently is costing 50-80 times as much as typical urban highway construction. Typically, highway construction is WAY cheaper than building rail.

[cwkimbro]

It doesn't quite work out that way in reality..... which makes this a complete apples to oranges comparison.

Highways will have some long-term capital maintenance costs, but have very little in terms of operational costs.

This Toll program on a system-wide build out is expected to cover 50% of the cost of building these projects, whereas transit in this area and most in the US does not earn any capital funds.

Furthermore, the remainder of the funds of the projects are coming from sources that are mostly funded through gas taxes, which is still an indirect user fee of roadway users.

Transit's farebox recovery ratio is still not paying for all the day-to-day operation costs of service. That means it is not funding its own cost of building or its complete funds of operations.

So for us to say we merely take money from the high project to build rail-transit instead, it most definitely wouldn't nearly be the 55-miles you make it out to be.

You wouldn't get the financing from that toll revenue, you would have to source the funds for the operation costs (which is what happened when the state tried to convince us to create that 1% regional transportation tax years back), and you're still not really addressing the amount of revenue going towards that highway from the gas tax. This is why the Emory LRT was so expensive when it was included in the regional TSPLOST tax, it was accounting for 10 years of operations cost over the life of the tax (it really should be for longer to be accurate; comparing the expected build life of each way forward would be the best way to go).


So in reality yes... we have options and we can always build something else instead, however not nearly in the way or quantity you just presented. Way too rosey of an estimate in favor of transit by a long shot.


The basic conclusion is this project is not equal to the same amount of funds required as 55 miles of rail-transit, which you're equating to HRT only being $200 million/mile and you're failing to forget the highway project generates funds for capital costs both direct and indirect, while transit doesn't.

[arjay57]

I am okay with building 55 more miles of transit so long as they don't slap more taxes on the Little Man.

[citidata18]

Originally Posted by jsvh

Sure it can. Change the law.

Or at least use the money for the needed maintenance of existing roads instead of further increasing future maintenance liability.

Or if not that, return the money to taxpayers.

Regardless, this is just yet another reminder that roads are more expensive and there is money for transit. We choose to make rules that forces it to go to subsidizing more roads instead.

Oh, if only the bolded were that easy (have you seen the state of Congress lately?), lol.

[Gulch]

Originally Posted by arjay57

I am okay with building 55 more miles of transit so long as they don't slap more taxes on the Little Man.

Do you feel the same way about the express toll lane system?

[Gulch]

Also, if this funding split exists for I-285 top end, it’ll also exist for the GA 400 lanes that will kill any shot of a MARTA rail extension to Windward. Makes that rail cost look cheap in comparison.