Atlanta Streetcar (Downtown Loop) progress (Columbus, Savannah: average cost, inclusive, Amtrak)

[#1MARTAFan]

Originally Posted by waronxmas

When you calculate it that way it seems so, but that's 5% of the total population and not the working population. There are 2 million working age adults with jobs in Metro Atlanta. The city of Atlanta itself is home to 479,000 of these jobs, or roughly 25%, and half of these workers (273,789) commute in. No other city or district in Metro Atlanta comes close to hosting that many jobs or commuters. Not Cumberland, Alpharetta, Roswell, Dunwoody, nor Sandy Springs. Even if you combined the working population of these districts together (It's just 271,573 between them all), it would not amount to the number of people working in the city of Atlanta...and those districts are all separated from each other by great distances.

So yeah, it's true that most working age adults don't work in the City of Atlanta, but as a employment center it is the largest single one in the entire State/Southeast and one of the largest on the continent. There is a need to move people in and out quickly. Highways and buses aren't enough to cut it. Solely on this point alone, we need to have rail based mass transit in Atlanta in and out side the city. This idea that we shouldn't just because most don't work in Atlanta proper is ridiculous since the same is true in EVERY city in the US, including NYC.

Regardless of whether the number is 5%, 20% or 50%, the numbers I provided to not lie. There are cheaper alternatives that provide transportation options to people than this proposed commuter rail line I researched.

So... are you in favor of the taxpayers subsidizing 1 person to the tune of $11,000 in direct costs alone to commute every day via a commuter rail line? I am not.

[#1MARTAFan]

Originally Posted by cqholt

If building a commuter rail line saves 1 persons life that would have died in an auto accidents, its worth the cost.

Really?

It is unfortunate that you have lost friends in auto accidents, but I am not in favor of paying $11,000 per person to minutely reduce the risk that someone might die in an auto accident. Taking 1,800 cars off the road each day would have a negligible impact on the average person's chance of being killed in an automobile accident.

[#1MARTAFan]

Originally Posted by Zanarkand A East

Not to mention lessening the number of drivers, but saving lives is also a plus

Yes... but the taxpayers are paying $11,000 per year for each vehicle taken off the road.

[waronxmas]

Originally Posted by #1MARTAFan

Regardless of whether the number is 5%, 20% or 50%, the numbers I provided to not lie. There are cheaper alternatives that provide transportation options to people than this proposed commuter rail line I researched.

So... are you in favor of the taxpayers subsidizing 1 person to the tune of $11,000 in direct costs alone to commute every day via a commuter rail line? I am not.

Well, if this was a cost that had no benefits you would have a point, but there are several ways this investment makes good economic sense. If those commuters are taken off the road by a robust enough system, then congestion is reduced. If congestion is reduced then it increases productivity for companies that rely on the road network to make money (like freight companies) and can also lead to less pollution in the air which has all types of health benefits that have intangible cost savings.

Overall, we already know that investing solely in road infrastructure is a road to nowhere. Just look at Los Angeles. They took this route and stuck with almost never ending traffic. If we do not start a system now, 50 years down the line when have twice the population the metro currently has we'll be in bad shape.

Also, this argument about costs doesn't scare me. I believe in socialism and I believe the role of government is to spend taxes on building things for the greater good of society. I see no benefit in collecting taxes and holding on to it nor collecting little or no tax for people to keep for themselves. That's a very selfish way at looking at society. Just look at how well the libertarian paradise of Somalia has turned out and the shape it's infrastructure is in. That's what happens when you don't invest in big projects.

[#1MARTAFan]

Originally Posted by waronxmas

Also, this argument about costs doesn't scare me. I believe in socialism and I believe the role of government is to spend taxes on building things for the greater good of society. I see no benefit in collecting taxes and holding on to it nor collecting little or no tax for people to keep for themselves. That's a very selfish way at looking at society. Just look at how well the libertarian paradise of Somalia has turned out and the shape it's infrastructure is in. That's what happens when you don't invest in big projects.

Regardless of your political ideology, wouldn't it make more sense to invest the money in a way that provides the maximum impact on proving for the greater good of society? Why give 1,800 people a nice ride to work when the $800 million (total 30 year cost) could be invested in a more responsible way that impacted more lives? Heck, that seems like a fundamental principle of socialism to me.

I don't think anyone is advocating collecting taxes and not using them. If that were the case, our governments would have massive budget surpluses. Last I checked that wasn't that case... but I digress.

Somalia? LOL. If only Somalia had the foresight to invest in big streetcar and commuter rail projects...

[waccamatt]

Originally Posted by #1MARTAFan

Yes... but the taxpayers are paying $11,000 per year for each vehicle taken off the road.

You do realize that roads are subsidized, also; right?

[#1MARTAFan]

Originally Posted by waccamatt

You do realize that roads are subsidized, also; right?

Indeed they are, but if you look back, the combined direct (subsidy) costs are minute compared to the subsidy commuter rail requires. I suggest you scroll back a page or two and look at the analysis I provided which looks at the 'total cost to society' which includes all sorts of indirect costs. Even with the road subsidy and all of these other costs, road transit comes in much cheaper. The indirect costs cover accidents, parking, waste disposal, air pollution damages, economic trade and natural resource use, road noise, CO2, water pollution, barrier effects to pedestrians, land impact use costs, roadway land value, and congestion costs.

Direct and indirect costs of road were 50% of just the direct cost of commuter rail. There are significant indirect costs associated with commuter rail which would further widen this already massive gap.

[Rationalism]

Originally Posted by waronxmas

Well, if this was a cost that had no benefits you would have a point, but there are several ways this investment makes good economic sense. If those commuters are taken off the road by a robust enough system, then congestion is reduced. If congestion is reduced then it increases productivity for companies that rely on the road network to make money (like freight companies) and can also lead to less pollution in the air which has all types of health benefits that have intangible cost savings.

Overall, we already know that investing solely in road infrastructure is a road to nowhere. Just look at Los Angeles. They took this route and stuck with almost never ending traffic. If we do not start a system now, 50 years down the line when have twice the population the metro currently has we'll be in bad shape.

I don't believe #1MARTAFan (ironic name) is really even reading what half of your guys posts (notice how he did not even reply to this part of your post). Expanding lanes give diminishing returns in time saved on a commute. Even assuming that rail cost more per passenger it doesn't really matter since there comes a point that it is simply necessary. Your example of Los Angeles (and Atlanta itself even) is a perfect example of your argument. Unless Atlanta wants to cut down even more trees, add even more lanes, and even more highways another option is to invest in rail which from point A to point B is far faster (especially when we consider traffic) which sure may be more expensive but it basically becomes a necessity to relieve traffic.

BTW one thing MARTA can do is simply to use the land it owns more efficiently in other words each station should have retail in the station itself or on adjacent land. Atlanta should also zone high density around train stations, this will greatly increase the success of rapid transit. This "model" works very well in basically every system that it is implemented in. An extreme example of this is in Japan where the rail companies make the majority of their money from leasing land to business and real estate, not the train (tickets) themselves. BTW keep in mind that MARTA is basically the only system in the country that doesn't even recieve state funding.

P.S. Here is a good link explaining the diminishing returns of continued road expansion: http://blog.lib.umn.edu/levin031/tra...ts-too-li.html

[#1MARTAFan]

Originally Posted by Rationalism.

I don't believe #1MARTAFan (ironic name) is really even reading what half of your guys posts (notice how he did not even reply to this part of your post). Expanding lanes give diminishing returns in time saved on a commute. Even assuming that rail cost more per passenger it doesn't really matter since there comes a point that it is simply necessary. Your example of Los Angeles (and Atlanta itself even) is a perfect example of your argument. Unless Atlanta wants to cut down even more trees, add even more lanes, and even more highways another option is to invest in rail which from point A to point B is far faster (especially when we consider traffic) which sure may be more expensive but it basically becomes a necessity to relieve traffic.

BTW one thing MARTA can do is simply to use the land it owns more efficiently in other words each station should have retail in the station itself or on adjacent land. Atlanta should also zone high density around train stations, this will greatly increase the success of rapid transit. This "model" works very well in basically every system that it is implemented in. An extreme example of this is in Japan where the rail companies make the majority of their money from leasing land to business and real estate, not the train (tickets) themselves. BTW keep in mind that MARTA is basically the only system in the country that doesn't even recieve state funding.

P.S. Here is a good link explaining the diminishing returns of continued road expansion: Transportation Benefits Too Little - The Transportationist.org

So you think that $11,000 in tax subsidy per rider is a good use of funds?

No one wants to answer that question yes or no, but they just want to respond by circumventing the question. It really is that easy.

I can't change your mind if you think that $11,000 for 1 rider is a good use of funds. I'm just curious if anyone really can make a fact/logic based argument in which that use of funds makes fiscal sense.

[MattCW]

Since this will be a quick reply: yes, it is. I'll provide a more detailed rebuttal later, I haven't had the time yet, but if that's the cost for high capacity transit to a dense area, then yes, it's a good use of funds. (As I pointed out earlier, it wouldn't be that much, but I'll get into that later)