We CAN get mass transit going. Just look at Dallas, TX. (Decatur: live, to move)

[AcidSnake]

Originally Posted by bizchick86

Ahhh, so there you have it. Government is indeed ineffective when it's affected by corrupt business interests. But when you vote for sound politicians that are ethical regulators, then guess what, you have a functioning system of checks and balances that would not exist if the government were completely out of regulation.

I suppose no one remembers why the government had to become involved in business regulation to begin with. During laissez-faire politics from the Gilded Age to the 1920s, railroad companies created monopolies, bankers did not respect investor's rights, and a little thing called the Great Depression happened.

Funny how when the gov't backslides because contradictory pro-business/ small-government-but-big-government-when-we-need-them-to-push-our business-agenda voters and politicians have their way, we land another economic depression.

This is not a partisan issue. This is simply a matter of elected officials being bought off by business interests and not having the citizens' interests in mind.

Fortunately, at least elected officials are pressured by my vote, while a fat cat who is focused on money is not. And a fat cat with a monopoly is even less likely to give two cents about my business if he controls the entire industry and I have little choice but to pay him for my service.

And imagine if businesses owned EVERY service in the country. I suppose the failing health care, education, and banking system's failures have not shown enough..let's hand over everything to the private sector! I don't even want to imagine that nightmare.

History has already proven why either supporting indiscriminate free market or creating policies that benefit monopolies doesn't work. As long as there are people out there who believe private business is the end all and be all to provide services we will have cycles of depressions and will continue to debate a non-debate.

Bizchick, you are SO on point!

[KevK]

Originally Posted by noah

99.5% of cities with cable only have one provider. Your cable is regulated by a city or county official but unfortunately most cities refuse to grant more then one franchise in an area. Luckily in some areas this is changing with Verizon entering the market. So in this unique case Comcast has kept out competition in part because of local governments and how they go about renewing cable franchises. Cities defend it saying they insist comcast provide cable in all areas of a city etc. In seaching on google I found there is one town in NC that has a city owned cable system and Time Warner has lobbied the state to pass a law outlawing the city owned cable so that TW doesn't have any competition. There are significant barriers to competitors entering a market caused mainly on laws on the books due to lobbying by Comcast and others. I always thought most people agreed/knew that comcast had a monopoly and that was a large part of the continued 10% annual increases.

In most places you can choose from:

Comcast
Dishnetwork
DirecTV
AT&T Uverse

[toll_booth]

I found the link explaining the overview of how the Transit Planning Board came about, and how they created Concept 3:

http://tpb.ga.gov/Documents/TPB%20Fi...ary%202009.pdf

[straightfromatown]

Originally Posted by bizchick86

Ahhh, so there you have it. Government is indeed ineffective when it's affected by corrupt business interests. But when you vote for sound politicians that are ethical regulators, then guess what, you have a functioning system of checks and balances that would not exist if the government were completely out of regulation.

I suppose no one remembers why the government had to become involved in business regulation to begin with. During laissez-faire politics from the Gilded Age to the 1920s, railroad companies created monopolies, bankers did not respect investor's rights, and a little thing called the Great Depression happened.

Funny how when the gov't backslides because contradictory pro-business/ small-government-but-big-government-when-we-need-them-to-push-our business-agenda voters and politicians have their way, we land another economic depression.

This is not a partisan issue. This is simply a matter of elected officials being bought off by business interests and not having the citizens' interests in mind.

Fortunately, at least elected officials are pressured by my vote, while a fat cat who is focused on money is not. And a fat cat with a monopoly is even less likely to give two cents about my business if he controls the entire industry and I have little choice but to pay him for my service.

And imagine if businesses owned EVERY service in the country. I suppose the failing health care, education, and banking system's failures have not shown enough..let's hand over everything to the private sector! I don't even want to imagine that nightmare.

History has already proven why either supporting indiscriminate free market or creating policies that benefit monopolies doesn't work. As long as there are people out there who believe private business is the end all and be all to provide services we will have cycles of depressions and will continue to debate a non-debate.

I need to clarify what I mean by corruption as there are two definitions.

The first, corruption by government that is being paid off by businesses is the worst. It shouldn't happen, but it frequently does. Government presence in economic regulation enables it to happen and while it is illegal and unethical, there will always be scumbags in government and private business who will work out deals to benefit themselves at the expense of the free market if they are able to. The only way to prevent it from happening is to prevent the government from having any control over the market.

The second, and what I was trying to get across, is that government regulation into any industry is inherently corrupt. I have not seen any evidence that Comcast paid anyone off, so I think this is the form of corruption that they are currently exploiting, resulting in a government supported monopoly.

Government corrupts a market anytime it gets involved in any capacity. In order to effectively manage or regulate an industry, you must understand it. Even the most experienced industry leaders struggle to understand and keep up with the rapid developments in industries like technology, communications, and entertainment. Their jobs and the future of their companies depend on their ability to understand and adapt to the rapid changes, yet they still struggle. How then, can an impartial 3rd party, who has no understanding of the industry and no financial stake in it, develop a knowledge of it sufficient to regulate it? It's not possible. Any attempts to do so are irresponsible and result in unpredictable consequences,

The Comcast example is a great illustration of this. The internet/cable service industry is one that is rapidly changing. The major players, Comcast, AT&T, Dish, and a few others, are constantly struggling to be on top. The rate of technological development is amazing and even people who work in the industry struggle to keep up with all the latest advancements. Yet the government felt it could regulate it. Under the guise of protecting consumers, the government put regulations in place that force cable operators to service people even in remote areas that are unprofitable. Further regulations which were established before fiber infrastructure was developed restricted the means by which tv signals could be delivered to customers. When companies like AT&T and Dish attempted to offer consumers alternatives to the Comcast monopoly, they were restricted by the regulations that were not designed with concepts like IPTV and satellite in mind It took years (and it is still ongoing) for the government to attempt to understand the new technologies and adjust the regulations in order to allow new entrants to the market. During all this time, consumers suffered because because of regulation. This is the corruption I was referring to.

Railroad regulation was corrupt as well. People like to believe that the railroads were a true coercive monopoly that came out of the free market, yet that was not the case. Private turnpikes and horse-drawn railroads existed long before modern railroads were developed. The railroads were natural free-market competitors to the existing private transportation methods. One of the main regulations that came out of railroad regulation was the abolishment of volume discounts. Railroads were prohibited from offering lower prices to their largest business customers! That is a standard practive in almost all businesses today, yet it was prohibited at the time. That is the kind of insanity that results when people who don't understand the industry attempt to regulate it.

As for other failing "private" businesses like health care, education, and banking... none of them are private. Health care has been increasingly regulated over the past few decades and has continuously become more expensive. Private schools continue to offer a greater ROI than public schools. And banking? Supposedly the FTC regulates it, but what happened with Bernie Madoff? There was either explicit corruption in that someone from the FTC was paid off, or the government is simply not capable of effectively regulating the industry as is the case with cable.

The free market does not cause recessions, government interference does. Last year Ben Bernake even came out and said that the Federal Reserve was responsible for causing the Great Depression.

Years ago we achieved separation of church and state. Now its time for separation of state and economics.

[samiwas1]

So I'm trying to figure out how there could possibly be a system whereby every road was privately owned and maintained.

So, would there be a toll booth at every intersection? If I turn right, am I charged by Billy Bob's Road Company, but if I go straight, I'm charged by Crazy Bill's Wholesale Streets? Who maintains the intersection? Billy Bob, or Crazy Bill? What about the lights? What happens when Crazy Bill goes bankrupt? Does the street become unavailable...can I even cross it while driving on Billy Bob's road? This just makes absolutely zero sense to me, and seems to be dreamed up by one of those people who is all for corporate profit profit profit at any expense. I know the type, and straightfromatown bleeds it. And as others have pointed out, it is exactly why this country is in the economic sloshpit that it is now. Most private corporations exist to bleed every cent they can out of customers and make their investors rich.

The same idea follows to the mass transit (so back to the point of this thread)...unless one single private company owned all of the rail lines in the city, then it would be a nightmare getting around. You get off your Verizon Rail at North Station for your transfer and have to buy a new ticket from TicketMaster Trains (don't forget the convenience fee!) to get to your destination. Then make sure to get another ticket from EZ Eddie's Bus to get that final few blocks. What a drag.

I am fully in support of transit being publicly funded and controlled. I don't want to have to worry about whether I use Peachtree or Piedmont because one is cheaper. I don't want to not be able to get to the store because I don't have two quarters on me to get on Collier. I don't want some schmoe who leaves his $13 million mansion in his stretch Hummer in charge of anything that controls how I get from one place to another. Because lord knows, I paid for that Hummer, and I don't get to even see it (see what I did there?). Air travel is a different beast, so don't compare.

Looking at the Chapter 3 plan, I would use that rail system extensively. I live right on one of the proposed lines, and it heads right into Midtown. I would LOVE to see some rail expansion around here. Unfortunately, by the time it happens, I'll be a grumpy old man...too many NIMBY's in this town holding it back. I cannot believe someone actually said that they don't want rail anywhere near them because it would bring "those people" to their neighborhood. Give me a f&(*ing break...I was actually kind of thinking that was a joke, but apparently not.

Oh, and to the last point...OF COURSE it's easier to drive, SOMETIMES (I don't think going 85-North is easy at 5:30pm). However, the whole point of mass transit is to REDUCE the number of cars on the road. Using a taxi or a shuttle does not help that one bit.

[AcidSnake]

Originally Posted by samiwas1

So I'm trying to figure out how there could possibly be a system whereby every road was privately owned and maintained.

So, would there be a toll booth at every intersection? If I turn right, am I charged by Billy Bob's Road Company, but if I go straight, I'm charged by Crazy Bill's Wholesale Streets? Who maintains the intersection? Billy Bob, or Crazy Bill? What about the lights? What happens when Crazy Bill goes bankrupt? Does the street become unavailable...can I even cross it while driving on Billy Bob's road? This just makes absolutely zero sense to me, and seems to be dreamed up by one of those people who is all for corporate profit profit profit at any expense. I know the type, and straightfromatown bleeds it. And as others have pointed out, it is exactly why this country is in the economic sloshpit that it is now. Most private corporations exist to bleed every cent they can out of customers and make their investors rich.

The same idea follows to the mass transit (so back to the point of this thread)...unless one single private company owned all of the rail lines in the city, then it would be a nightmare getting around. You get off your Verizon Rail at North Station for your transfer and have to buy a new ticket from TicketMaster Trains (don't forget the convenience fee!) to get to your destination. Then make sure to get another ticket from EZ Eddie's Bus to get that final few blocks. What a drag.

I am fully in support of transit being publicly funded and controlled. I don't want to have to worry about whether I use Peachtree or Piedmont because one is cheaper. I don't want to not be able to get to the store because I don't have two quarters on me to get on Collier. I don't want some schmoe who leaves his $13 million mansion in his stretch Hummer in charge of anything that controls how I get from one place to another. Because lord knows, I paid for that Hummer, and I don't get to even see it (see what I did there?). Air travel is a different beast, so don't compare.

Looking at the Chapter 3 plan, I would use that rail system extensively. I live right on one of the proposed lines, and it heads right into Midtown. I would LOVE to see some rail expansion around here. Unfortunately, by the time it happens, I'll be a grumpy old man...too many NIMBY's in this town holding it back. I cannot believe someone actually said that they don't want rail anywhere near them because it would bring "those people" to their neighborhood. Give me a f&(*ing break...I was actually kind of thinking that was a joke, but apparently not.

Oh, and to the last point...OF COURSE it's easier to drive, SOMETIMES (I don't think going 85-North is easy at 5:30pm). However, the whole point of mass transit is to REDUCE the number of cars on the road. Using a taxi or a shuttle does not help that one bit.

I would also add that privatization and "free markets" for the average consumer are two totally different concepts. Privatization only only means that we are replacing one gonverning system with another. With a "free market" you need perfect competition in order for the consumer to realize any savings.

Why do these "privatization at-all costs" types seem to gloss over this simple concept I will never know. The road system and the transit system will never be truly efficient because it is large and stationary, it can't be duplicated, changed or replaced easily. At least not like a television set or a cellphone which can be manufactured or duplicated in many different ways by several different companies.

At least with a Public organization operating and maintaining the roads there's accountability, there's oversight and there is a chance to see how the dollars are being spent. You can't get that with a private company, especially if it's not publicly traded on a Stock exchange.

I have yet to know what sort of budget the City of Sandy Springs has from being operated by the private company known as CH2M HILL OMI (what a weird name!) in comparison to when the area was under the governance of Fulton County.

[waronxmas]

Originally Posted by AcidSnake

I have yet to know what sort of budget the City of Sandy Springs has from being operated by the private company known as CH2M HILL OMI (what a weird name!) in comparison to when the area was under the governance of Fulton County.

Something tells me you never will and if you do it will be at the end of the spectacular failure of it.

What the "privatization at all cost" people fail to mention is that their ideal system has never proven anywhere ever. Not once. Or did I miss all the thriving city/countries that run on almost zero government and all "free enterprise"?

[Saintmarks]

I can see this thread has done like most and diverted from the original topic. Haven't taken the time to read everything, but as a Georgia native and long time metro Atlanta resident now in the Dallas area for over 5 years, would like to comment on the original topic.

Dallas is building more light rail and has more miles of rail available then Atlanta. However, in the five years of living here, I have yet to ride a DART train or bus. When in Altanta, I used MARTA frequently. The big difference? MARTA was going places I wanted to go and didn't want to drive or deal with the hassle of parking. All of the professional sports facilities are accessible by MARTA, only American Airlines Center in downtown Dallas will be when the next line is finished. Texas Stadium in Irving (home of the Cowboys thru this past season), Cowboys Stadium in Arlington (the spanking new home of the Cowboys) and the Rangers ballpark in Arlington are not accessible to DART.

Hartsfield (ugh, Hartsfield-Jackson, can't get used to that) is accessible by MARTA, DFW is not for DART. Love Field will be on the newest line tho.

Fair Park, Home of the massive Texas State Fair is accessible to DART, might be the first time I take advantage of it, but that is only during the month of October.

Other than that, there is not much for me to want to go to in the DFW Metroplex where DART makes any sense. I am in McKinney, which if you overlay a map of DFW on Atlanta would be similar to living in Alpharetta or Forsyth County. I have a DART station in Plano which is straight down the expressway from me about 8 exits, would take 10 to 15 mins from my home if traffic is not a problem. It is much more in line with where I am now than the Perimeter station was from my home in Marietta. But I drove to Perimeter countless times for the airport or sporting or concert events at the different venues downtown. Yet, I don't use DART cause I'm not interested in going any place it is going.

Atlanta's layout is much more conducive to ridership with the Airport at the south end, all the venues easy to get to downtown, and with the way Atlanta has developed linearly on Peachtree, many points of interest in midtown and Buckhead as well as the hospital district and Perimeter Mall district on the north end.

I would love to see Atlanta develop more lines, but truth be told the main things one would like to use mass transit for are already served by MARTA. Would think getting Emory connected in directly would help, as well as a connection to the Cumberland/VInings area. If the east line would get out to Stone Mountain, that is another recreational type of thing I would use.

Just wanted to point out that while Dallas is doing more, MARTA is still a better system, primarily because MARTA serves a more useful area.

[samiwas1]

Originally Posted by Saintmarks

I would love to see Atlanta develop more lines, but truth be told the main things one would like to use mass transit for are already served by MARTA. Would think getting Emory connected in directly would help, as well as a connection to the Cumberland/VInings area. If the east line would get out to Stone Mountain, that is another recreational type of thing I would use.

Your first sentence is true. However, the problem is that while it serves most of the places people GO, it doesn't serve most of the places people LIVE. So you still have to drive to the MARTA, and at that point, why not just drive all the way? Your suggestions about Emory and Cumberland are spot on...two places which should be on the priority list of being served.

[south-to-west]

Originally Posted by Saintmarks

Hartsfield (ugh, Hartsfield-Jackson, can't get used to that)...

Come on man, Hartsfield-Jackson-Young-Massell-Allen-Franklin Atlanta International Airport rolls right off the tongue!