2012 Atlanta Region Transportation Referendum (Dunwoody, North Druid Hills: underwater, drain, water)

[tikigod311]

Originally Posted by cqholt

I do not agree with the elevated HOT lanes in the NW corridor. Elevated structures are ugly and most eventually come down decades after being built. The money for the NW HOT lanes should instead be diverted to adding Commuter Rail in that corridor, since all the cities are old RR towns and are centered around old stations. This would help in kick starting Atlanta's regional commuter rail system.

You are totally right, those elevated lanes will be hated. Not sure if they will take them down though. How hard would it be to convert them to railbeds

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by cqholt

I do not agree with the elevated HOT lanes in the NW corridor. Elevated structures are ugly and most eventually come down decades after being built. The money for the NW HOT lanes should instead be diverted to adding Commuter Rail in that corridor, since all the cities are old RR towns and are centered around old stations. This would help in kick starting Atlanta's regional commuter rail system.

I agree with you (surprise) that elevated structures typically aren't the right solution and do end up coming down. Boston is a great example of how billions were spent to replace an elevated structure that was barely 30 years old when the project to replace it kicked off. I also think the hot lanes are a mistake and normal HOV lanes are the better option.

As for commuter rail to the NW suburbs....hasn't the message sunk in yet that residents don't want it, and they won't ride it? If people wanted it, they would demand it and vote for it. Neither has happened.

[cqholt]

They have never had reliable rail transit like MARTA. I think those people are more likely to use commuter rail over LRT & HRT. The buses to Atlanta are popular among riders.
Its a cheaper alternative to building new infrastructures. Start running trains, build simple stations. If it works upgrade the stations, tracks, & trains. If not then move to another corridor.

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by neil0311

As for commuter rail to the NW suburbs....hasn't the message sunk in yet that residents don't want it, and they won't ride it? If people wanted it, they would demand it and vote for it. Neither has happened.

I honestly think it would be a success, at least as successful as any other line. Possibly more. But clearly it's easy to stop as rail has a lot of inertia given how little MARTA's rail system has expanded.

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by cqholt

They have never had reliable rail transit like MARTA. I think those people are more likely to use commuter rail over LRT & HRT. The buses to Atlanta are popular among riders.
Its a cheaper alternative to building new infrastructures. Start running trains, build simple stations. If it works upgrade the stations, tracks, & trains. If not then move to another corridor.

Even commuter rail has a lot of inertia. They talk and talk about it for literally decades and................nothing.

[NuclearDensity]

Originally Posted by RandyWatson13

The Tea Party is full of ****. They spent $15,000 they said. The fact of the matter is this had NOTHING to do with PARTY LINES and EVERYTHING to do with a ridiculous plan by wasteful government and people TIRED of paying for taxes. It was liberals and righties that voted NO overwhelmingly.

I know its hard for many people but GASP did it occur to some of you that people voted based on the facts at hand and the desire to not raise taxes instead of blindly for a party.

It does happen.

Totally agree Randy.

It was clear to most voters that the recent TSPLOST proposal failed because tax payers were being asked to "bail out" the mismanaged MARTA organization for items that MARTA should be paying for itself out of its internal funds. The MARTA charter specifically describes how the 1% sales tax gathered from Fulton and DeKalb counties are to be used 50% for operations (including maintenance) and 50% for expansion (extend existing lines and build new lines). Also, all revenue produced from ridership tickets are to be used for operaions (including maintenance).

The following TSPLOST items are MARTA maintenance items and should be paid for by MARTA not regional tax payers.

Maintenance:
TIA-M-001 - $4,400,000 - MARTA Train Control Systems Upgrade
TIA-M-002 - $97,600,000 - MARTA Elevator and Escalator Rehabilitation Program
TIA-M-003 - $27,000,000 - MARTA Unified Transit Communication Infrastructure
TIA-M-004 - $30,500,000 - MARTA Passenger Information System
TIA-M-005 - $28,000,000 - Tunnel and Platform Lighting Upgrade
TIA-M-006 - $700,000 - MARTA Tunnel Ventilation Rehabilitation
TIA-M-007 - $248,800,000 - MARTA Electrical Power Rehabilitation
TIA-M-008 - $5,600,000 - MARTA Track Rehabilitation
TIA-M-009 - $90,000,000 - MARTA Aerial Structure Rehabilitation
TIA-M-014 - $7,160,000 - MARTA Airport Station Improvements
------------
$540,000,000

Tax Payers are more open to MARTA expansion and willing to supply funding for extensions (especially Cumberland/Vinings). However, there is not the level of trust with tax payers that MARTA would properly administer those funds for expansion. Until the corruption ceases or State of Georgia restructures MARTA, there will be no TSPLOST funds for MARTA. Ultra Lean operations and careful spending is essential for MARTA to regain the public trust.

[toll_booth]

This temporary alliance between the Sierra Club and the Tea Party against the TSPLOST reminds me of the temporary alliance between feminist groups and the Moral Majority in the '80s. The latter two sets of groups were almost diametrically opposed on just about every issue that existed, but on one single issue, their opinions were virtually identical. And both sides' reasoning was absurd. Such can be said about the Sierra Club and the Tea Party.

Unlike most Americans, the Sierra Club does come across as the stereotypical Far-Left group that claims that the fewer cars we have, the better we are, period. They opposed the TSPLOST because, allegedly, "it spent too much on roads." Common-sense logic dictates that cars sitting in traffic waste even more gas than those actually moving, yet the Sierra Club wanted none of that. Compromise did not seem to be in their vocabulary: We must spend nearly all of the TSPLOST on transit, which may not even be used all that much in parts due to metro Atlanta's low density (yes, I said it), or we will help sink the entire project. Give us exactly what we want or we'll kill the whole thing.

The Tea Party does the same thing on the Far Right. That have completely divorced themselves from the reality that in order for our society to prosper, we have to invest in it. We have to invest in our schools. We have to invest in our firefighters. We have to invest in our roads. In their fantasyland that was invented by selfish corporate hacks, any amount of public spending on any cause whatsoever that does not directly involve killing, stealing, or destroying, is bad and must be brought to a halt. The single worst thing that the government can ever do, the Tea Party believes, is to spend money on things that cause people to have life and life abundantly. Even a mere drop in the bucket toward this goal, such as the TSPLOST, is an absolute abomination and must be stopped by any means necessary.

The Sierra Club and the Tea Party were an excellent match for each another. Damn the fact that they disagree on about 95% of issues out there: The fact that they do agree on that other 5%, and the fact that they seem to never relent on their stances in the face of contradicting evidence, means that they were in perfect position to have the one-night stand from hell. And much of Georgia cheered this demise, which, quite frankly, speaks volumes about those who did so.

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by toll_booth

The Tea Party does the same thing on the Far Right. That have completely divorced themselves from the reality that in order for our society to prosper, we have to invest in it.

OK.. I'm going to reintroduce some facts back into the conversation.

The Tea Party started out on the national scene as a protest to the factual state of the federal budget and the federal gov't. Our federal gov't is waist deep in debt, and spends too much. Half the wage earners pay no income taxes, while a small percentage pays most of the taxes. The Tea Party was a wake up call to both parties that the situation cannot be allowed continue.

So, for all the FUD and crap from the left about the Tea Party, their platform is nothing more than what every family has to do....spend less than you take in. Live within you means. Don't borrow and live on credit. Why are these simple rules so anathema to the left, and why do they feel the need to lie and try to make the Tea Party into some kind of radical militia or whatever the stereotype has become?

Live within our means. Use our tax dollars efficiently. Don't waste our money and then borrow more. Pretty simple really. That's the Tea Party.

[toll_booth]

Originally Posted by neil0311

OK.. I'm going to reintroduce some facts back into the conversation.

The Tea Party started out on the national scene as a protest to the factual state of the federal budget and the federal gov't. Our federal gov't is waist deep in debt, and spends too much. Half the wage earners pay no income taxes, while a small percentage pays most of the taxes. The Tea Party was a wake up call to both parties that the situation cannot be allowed continue.

So, for all the FUD and crap from the left about the Tea Party, their platform is nothing more than what every family has to do....spend less than you take in. Live within you means. Don't borrow and live on credit. Why are these simple rules so anathema to the left, and why do they feel the need to lie and try to make the Tea Party into some kind of radical militia or whatever the stereotype has become?

Live within our means. Use our tax dollars efficiently. Don't waste our money and then borrow more. Pretty simple really. That's the Tea Party.

They're a decade too late to that conversation, Neil. They should have started that kind of talk early on in the Bush administration, when he cut taxes for the rich, plunged us into two simultaneous wars, and decimated the Clinton surplus. The same people that are Tea-partiers now overwhelmingly voted to let Bush have a second term in office. Now these partisan shrills hate spending money on anything that doesn't kill, steal, or destroy.

I'm sorry if this brutal honesty is too much to stomach, but I despise the all-give-and-no-take attitude of the Far Right. They are more than willing to dish it out, but the minute any sort of criticism comes back on them, they cry and whine like spoiled children. Besides, if they don't want to invest in anything other than guns, they are free to go to Somalia.

[Onthemove2014]

Originally Posted by neil0311

OK.. I'm going to reintroduce some facts back into the conversation.

The Tea Party started out on the national scene as a protest to the factual state of the federal budget and the federal gov't. Our federal gov't is waist deep in debt, and spends too much. Half the wage earners pay no income taxes, while a small percentage pays most of the taxes. The Tea Party was a wake up call to both parties that the situation cannot be allowed continue.

So, for all the FUD and crap from the left about the Tea Party, their platform is nothing more than what every family has to do....spend less than you take in. Live within you means. Don't borrow and live on credit. Why are these simple rules so anathema to the left, and why do they feel the need to lie and try to make the Tea Party into some kind of radical militia or whatever the stereotype has become?

Live within our means. Use our tax dollars efficiently. Don't waste our money and then borrow more. Pretty simple really. That's the Tea Party.

That is totally true. The thing is the Tea party today is a bastardized version of what it used to be.

It had very libertarianish beginnings but now its full of neo-cons from the lowest common denominator. I used to be in support but not in the past 2 years.