If transportation vote fails, is there a plan B? (Atlanta: buy, subsidized)

[cqholt]

and as long as reasonable people come together and develop a Plan B

You do know we are talking about the GA legislature?

[JPD]

Originally Posted by neil0311

No argument that no one has a well thought out and presented Plan B ready to go as an alternative. I wish there was one, as it would have made it much easier to make the case against the current plan on the ballot.

My point is that the current law doesn't preclude a Plan B, and as long as reasonable people come together and develop a Plan B, there is a legal mechanism for it. If the citizens want one, then one will be formulated. Additionally, we need to review whether or not this format for authorizing and paying for these kinds of projects is the correct format.

Remember how long the citizens wanted Sunday Sales. How long did we wait to finally get it? You really want to wait a similar amount of time before traffic issues are addressed?

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by neil0311

I did read all of that the first time, but the point is that a Plan B is not out of the question. It may take some holding feet to the fire and political pressure, but the law provides a path to a Plan B. If a majority of the voting public wants a Plan B and communicates that fact to their elected officials, then the framework exists.

It's pretty close to out of the question. Remember, it took ten years to get the legislature to pass the current transportation referendum. Every year they'd go home without passing a bill, and every year Sonny Perdue would have a fit about their failure to do anything.

Once they finally passed the present bill, there were hosannas that we'd finally done the impossible. In the year and half since then, we've had countless studies, community meetings, town halls, bargaining sessions, unconstrained project lists, constrained project lists, revised constrained project lists, more public meetings, etc., etc., etc.

It's hard to imagine many people having the stomach to go through another 10-12 years of this. Even if we did, we'd simply be yet another decade behind the eight ball, with prices that will have undoubtedly gone up. And no indication whatsoever that we'd somehow have a better project mix than the one that's already been hammered out and agreed to by all ten counties.

Additionally, there is absolutely nothing stopping the state from undertaking many of these projects independent from the vote and the TSPLOST.

Well, nothing except that there's no funding and no agreement whatsoever about what those projects would be.

[brownhornet]

Originally Posted by JPD

Remember how long the citizens wanted Sunday Sales. How long did we wait to finally get it? You really want to wait a similar amount of time before traffic issues are addressed?

It'll be 2050 with 5 hour long traffic delays before anything serious is done about transportation here. And even then, their only answer will be to add 3 more lanes to existing highway. I don't think ATL will ever get ample public transportation, quite sad really.

[noah]

Why does it have to be approved by the state. Are they the only ones that can access a new tax. Not being from here I don't quite understand.

Originally Posted by PKCorey

We have to hope that the folks under the Gold Dome decide to bring it up for vote again in 2013/2014 to put it on the ballot then another 12-18 months going over the list so we are looking at middle of 2015 to early 2016.

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by brownhornet

It'll be 2050 with 5 hour long traffic delays before anything serious is done about transportation here. And even then, their only answer will be to add 3 more lanes to existing highway. I don't think ATL will ever get ample public transportation, quite sad really.

A key fallacy is that Atlanta has bad traffic relative to other large metropolitan areas. What I think will happen is what is already happening here and in many other cities where traffic is much worse and much more extensive. By 2050, huge residential Internet pipes will be the norm. More and more people will use technology and work from home at hours outside of traditional rush hours. Today, more business is settling outside the urban core and fewer people are commuting and that trend will continue. The assumption that people will live in their home in the suburbs and get in their car and drive 20 miles to their 9-5 job in some office tower in the urban center is 20th century thinking.

When you look at the traffic today, it's on specific roads at specific hours. You don't hit traffic on weekends, at night, or even during off peak hours during the day. By 2050, people who want to live closer to the urban core will do so, those who work outside it will live outside it, and many people will use technology and won't care where they live.

[PKCorey]

Originally Posted by noah

Why does it have to be approved by the state. Are they the only ones that can access a new tax. Not being from here I don't quite understand.

Yes, I don't believe the local cities/counties can imposes taxes on themselves without approval from the General Assembly.

[Box]

Originally Posted by neil0311

A key fallacy is that Atlanta has bad traffic relative to other large metropolitan areas. What I think will happen is what is already happening here and in many other cities where traffic is much worse and much more extensive. By 2050, huge residential Internet pipes will be the norm. More and more people will use technology and work from home at hours outside of traditional rush hours. Today, more business is settling outside the urban core and fewer people are commuting and that trend will continue. The assumption that people will live in their home in the suburbs and get in their car and drive 20 miles to their 9-5 job in some office tower in the urban center is 20th century thinking.

When you look at the traffic today, it's on specific roads at specific hours. You don't hit traffic on weekends, at night, or even during off peak hours during the day. By 2050, people who want to live closer to the urban core will do so, those who work outside it will live outside it, and many people will use technology and won't care where they live.

Is "The Internet will save us from traffic" really the excuse that folks are using to say we dont need to fix the traffic issue?!? This doesn't really seem like that logical of an argument, i means its assuming there will be a large scale shift towards solely telecommunication for work, and thats a big assumption.

[gtcorndog]

Originally Posted by cqholt

Pretty sure, more people use MARTA system, more than 482,500 Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, than drives through that interchange even counting each trip as 1.
Have you been reading, there is no guarantee of a plan B? Do you really think the governor and legislature are going to put their political lives on the line to do this process over again?
You never answered about the state funding GCT or CCT? Do you only hate MARTA? That's the problem with y'all non-daily MARTA riders, you only support it when it takes you directly to the airport or Dome. Gives you an alternative to sitting in traffic at a Braves game or festival at Piedmont Park. Why can't y'all see the positive impact of MARTA on the metro area?

That is a stupid way of looking at this. I bet more people use all of I-285 than MARTA. I bet more people use the interstate system than MARTA. See? Arbitrarily choosing two dissimilar sample sizes to examine makes no sense.

One project versus one project. One has hundreds of thousands of riders (the interchange) and one, in 20 years, should add 10,000 riders (plus the few that might already ride bus lines on that route).

Keep the sample size the same and you'll see how absurd the spending on this extension is.

[tikigod311]

Originally Posted by PKCorey

Yes, I don't believe the local cities/counties can imposes taxes on themselves without approval from the General Assembly.

Well, seems to me the solution is simple. Let the GA authorize a vote on a local tax, ie MARTA 2.0 ( but obviously dont call it MARTA). Let individual counties in the metro vote on whether or not they want to be part of the tax, which would likely involve commuter rail, the beltline , Clifton corridor, some sorta line to Cumberland, etc.

Since this is a optional coalition, not foolishly dictated at a state level, this would be politically palatable. The state politicians would not dictate the terms, I see no reason why politicians would avoid this. The biggest objection to the current tax is that counties were pulled into this unwillingly, as far as the electorate is concerned.

So with the new tax, its not some jumbled wish list of random projects. It would be targeted and effective solutions to congestion.

How could this NOT be Plan B?