One year after TSPLOST's defeat (Atlanta, Sandy Springs: apartments, condos, houses)

[MattCW]

Originally Posted by jsvh

Even going back to the original transit companies in NYC and else where, it was not one company. It was multiple. But yes, the number that comes after 0 is 1. However there are already private, un-subsudized transit companies offering cheaper rates than MARTA on some of it's under served routes.

And they all folded and the MTA had to take them over. Even so, it was a small number of companies and a completely different geography. How many ways are there between Marietta and Atlanta? Do you really think any company is going to spend $3Billion to build a route and another company spends the same to build another route?

I disagree about choice. And gas and automobiles are private industires, so yes those two factors get accounted for. But not free public roads and other subsudized options.

People factor how much money goes out of the wallet, they don't sit back and say "oh, well I'm paying $X for gas, but getting a free road instead" they look at total cost plain and simple and most people will factor in travel time vs. stress.

But yet it all seems to work without a government bureaucrat issuing quotas of food. And where you have a control economy "looking out for the community" you have starvation.

How did we go from the government investing in transit to issuing quotas of food? I fails to see how this even fits. In most control economies, no one is looking out for the community so much as they are looking out for the oligarchy or dictator in charge. Even so, no one is proposing a command economy or even anything close to it.

Yes, almost every private industry is better off than it's command economy counter-part. Look at all of the food options you have and variety of jobs created compared to Soviet Russia.

Again! NO ONE IS PROPOSING A COMMAND ECONOMY! NO ONE! THIS DOES NOT APPLY!

[kferq]

Originally Posted by jsvh

But food or shelter is not as critical?

What's your point? Food and shelter are just as critical and governments throughout history including ours make sure that there is enough of both for military and economic reasons and that poor people have access to them. Our tax dollars support these programs, just as they do transportation. Now because food is inexpensive, most of us do not need help in buying it, so apart from food stamps, most of the money goes to agricultural support. Shelter requires massive support from the government in terms of tax breaks for mortgages and businesses as well as for public housing.

Originally Posted by jsvh

Your statement implies that the free market would provide less transportation options. I think the opposite is true.

My statement did not imply that. My statement points out that we all benefit from useful transportation projects whether we personally use that mode of transportation because of the increase in economic efficiency which occurs. The point is that the benefit of transportation is spread out throughout society and not limited to the user.

Originally Posted by jsvh

Sure they will. People already choose where to live based on jobs (along with the cost of housing and dozens of other things). With this change people would also consider the cost of transportation as a factor.

If they are able to move within the Metro, then we all benefit form the efficiency. If they move somewhere else then our region loses valuable talent and we become Detroit.

Originally Posted by jsvh

And don't you agree the poor have better access to food and housing in free market economies than places where the government provides it? Should transportation be any different?

I don't agree. Based on the free market alone, we do a much worse job on getting food and shelter to the poor than Western European liberal/socialist countries (Germany, England, etc ) or Canada (Obviously communism doesn't work for anyone). Our policy has been based on the idea that the higher economic growth from a free market will allow charity and safety net programs to make up the difference. Food, as I mentioned, is inexpensive and our safety net programs and charities are largely (but not entirely) effective in preventing hunger. However, our charity and subsidy programs have been less effective in housing the poor. We have ridiculously high levels of homelessness and substandard housing compared to socialist systems. Transportation is no different: the free market would discriminate against those without money and subsidies and charity would be required to get the poor to work. The inability to get to work is a major driver of increasing suburban poverty in Metro Atlanta and contributes to our economic stagnation. The low wage workers can't afford to live where the jobs are and can't afford to commute there. Therefore, businesses relocate and we lose jobs and we become Detroit.

I prefer our free market system because of the overall higher economic growth improves opportunity for most people. But I also realize the system requires government intervention to prevent the excesses of the system from hurting the very workers who make the system possible.

Originally Posted by jsvh

Right, I realize that we have to keep competing for federal transportation dollars. Those helped build Atlanta because we got a larger share of those dollars than other places. So I am a realist and know we need to keep competing for those dollar while they exist. My point is that they should not exist. We would have more jobs and more transportation options if private companies ran things.

While disagree and think these federal transportation dollars should exist due to compelling national interest (economic and military), I agree with you that the practical thing to do is to come up with a plan B to attract those dollars! That is what this thread is about. We don't have that plan on a region-wide basis.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by MattCW

And they all folded and the MTA had to take them over. Even so, it was a small number of companies and a completely different geography. How many ways are there between Marietta and Atlanta? Do you really think any company is going to spend $3Billion to build a route and another company spends the same to build another route?

If there is demand of course there will be. Just like multiple grocery stores will open near each other offering the same product Or freight rail-road companies offer competing rates to the same place.

Originally Posted by MattCW

People factor how much money goes out of the wallet, they don't sit back and say "oh, well I'm paying $X for gas, but getting a free road instead" they look at total cost plain and simple and most people will factor in travel time vs. stress.

Exactly. They are not factoring the cost of roads because they are not paying for them directly.

Originally Posted by MattCW

How did we go from the government investing in transit to issuing quotas of food? I fails to see how this even fits. In most control economies, no one is looking out for the community so much as they are looking out for the oligarchy or dictator in charge. Even so, no one is proposing a command economy or even anything close to it.

Again! NO ONE IS PROPOSING A COMMAND ECONOMY! NO ONE! THIS DOES NOT APPLY!

For transportation you are. Government officials currently plan routes and then they get funded on which politician can get enough funding for their district. They may try to fund based on the number of people that need it. But it is not really any different than a government official trying to decide how many oranges should be allocated to the population of Atlanta.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by kferq

What's your point? Food and shelter are just as critical and governments throughout history including ours make sure that there is enough of both for military and economic reasons and that poor people have access to them. Our tax dollars support these programs, just as they do transportation. Now because food is inexpensive, most of us do not need help in buying it, so apart from food stamps, most of the money goes to agricultural support. Shelter requires massive support from the government in terms of tax breaks for mortgages and businesses as well as for public housing.

Transportation today would be like if the government built all housing and gave it away for free. Don't you think Section 8 is better than public housing projects? What if we issued vouchers for private roads? (Though basic income should replace both of those).

Originally Posted by kferq

My statement did not imply that. My statement points out that we all benefit from useful transportation projects whether we personally use that mode of transportation because of the increase in economic efficiency which occurs. The point is that the benefit of transportation is spread out throughout society and not limited to the user.

Does everyone not benefit from food? Should the government nationalize that then?

Originally Posted by kferq

I don't agree. Based on the free market alone, we do a much worse job on getting food and shelter to the poor than Western European liberal/socialist countries (Germany, England, etc ) or Canada (Obviously communism doesn't work for anyone). Our policy has been based on the idea that the higher economic growth from a free market will allow charity and safety net programs to make up the difference. Food, as I mentioned, is inexpensive and our safety net programs and charities are largely (but not entirely) effective in preventing hunger. However, our charity and subsidy programs have been less effective in housing the poor. We have ridiculously high levels of homelessness and substandard housing compared to socialist systems. Transportation is no different: the free market would discriminate against those without money and subsidies and charity would be required to get the poor to work. The inability to get to work is a major driver of increasing suburban poverty in Metro Atlanta and contributes to our economic stagnation. The low wage workers can't afford to live where the jobs are and can't afford to commute there. Therefore, businesses relocate and we lose jobs and we become Detroit.

I prefer our free market system because of the overall higher economic growth improves opportunity for most people. But I also realize the system requires government intervention to prevent the excesses of the system from hurting the very workers who make the system possible.

I agree with you that we need to provide for the poor. But I think we need to stop trying to give them specifically what they need (aka a unit in a project to live in, or a section 8 vocher that they can use at select places) and instead provide a basic income backed by a progressive tax system.

Originally Posted by kferq

While disagree and think these federal transportation dollars should exist due to compelling national interest (economic and military), I agree with you that the practical thing to do is to come up with a plan B to attract those dollars! That is what this thread is about. We don't have that plan on a region-wide basis.

We also don't have a metro wide plan for where grocery stores will get built. The private market will do that on it's own. But we have ARC's PLAN2040 to get federal money from today's flawed system.

[MattCW]

Originally Posted by jsvh

If there is demand of course there will be. Just like multiple grocery stores will open near each other offering the same product...

Billions of dollars to build one line is not the same as thousands of dollars to build one store. Not even close.

Or freight rail-road companies offer competing rates to the same place.

Where have you been lately? The freight companies stopped competing a long time ago. There might be a few competition-driven routes like LA-Chicago or even Atlanta-Savannah, but for the most part, the days of competing railroads is long gone and instead the railroads focus on mode-competition, namely rail vs. trucks.

Exactly. They are not factoring the cost of roads because they are not paying for them directly.

Since property taxes pay for the roads, and people factor in property taxes, they most assuredly ARE factoring the costs in.

For transportation you are. Government officials currently plan routes and then they get funded on which politician can get enough funding for their district. They may try to fund based on the number of people that need it. But it is not really any different than a government official trying to decide how many oranges should be allocated to the population of Atlanta.

I think you need to revisit your high school economics class again. A command economy controls all aspects, while a mixed-economy uses regulation and government investment in order to aid and increase economic activities. If the private market can't do it, then the government has to step in.

Originally Posted by jsvh

Transportation today would be like if the government built all housing and gave it away for free. Don't you think Section 8 is better than public housing projects? What if we issued vouchers for private roads? (Though basic income should replace both of those).

No, it isn't. I am growing tired of you always claiming we get "free" roads when we don't, we pay for them with taxes.

Does everyone not benefit from food? Should the government nationalize that then?

If the private market is unable to keep up, then yes, they should (and they do). Fortunately, that's not much of a problem and people aren't going to starve unless the government steps in. As a matter of fact, they did this very thing back in World War 2 by implementing rationing.

I agree with you that we need to provide for the poor. But I think we need to stop trying to give them specifically what they need (aka a unit in a project to live in, or a section 8 vocher that they can use at select places) and instead provide a basic income backed by a progressive tax system.

Ok, this I can agree with. But it's still a tax-based system. If you have no problems with basic necessities being backed by others' taxes, then why do you have a problem with basic necessities being backed by others' taxes when it's used for transportation?

We also don't have a metro wide plan for where grocery stores will get built. The private market will do that on it's own.

Which is fortunate. But that's not the case with transportation.

[tikigod311]

These quote by quote responses are getting out of control.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by MattCW

Since property taxes pay for the roads, and people factor in property taxes, they most assuredly ARE factoring the costs in.

So two jobs offer the same pay and one is one mile away and one is 45 miles away but they let you expense your car and gas. Why do you need to check your property tax bill in your decision? Why should the people in the next county over that you drive through have their property taxes raised to pay for the wider road needed for 10,000 people that decide to commute through that county?

[MattCW]

Originally Posted by jsvh

So two jobs offer the same pay and one is one mile away and one is 45 miles away but they let you expense your car and gas. Why do you need to check your property tax bill in your decision?

Because that's part of the cost of living there. Are you seriously implying that no one factors in the total costs of living someplace? To your example, I couldn't know without more information. Such as how the schools area. What the sales tax is. What kinds of shopping and entertainment are in the areas.

Why should the people in the next county over that you drive through have their property taxes raised to pay for the wider road needed for 10,000 people that decide to commute through that county?

A. I've never seen a case where people didn't first move to the middle community. B. That wider road would bring large investments to the intermediate area. C. it's usually state roads and not roads paid for by the property taxes specific to that middle community that would be used and thus come from the state taxation source. If that leads to an increase in property taxes, then it means a state-wide increase, but that's commensurate with the increased economic activity being generated. Unless we end up like Detroit, economic activities don't just move around, they enter new locations as an outgrowth of the old ones.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by MattCW

Because that's part of the cost of living there. Are you seriously implying that no one factors in the total costs of living someplace? To your example, I couldn't know without more information. Such as how the schools area. What the sales tax is. What kinds of shopping and entertainment are in the areas.

No. My point is that it has 0 effect on your property taxes if you commute 1 mile or commute 45 miles.

Originally Posted by MattCW

A. I've never seen a case where people didn't first move to the middle community.

No one ever moves straight to a suburb? So wrong.

Originally Posted by MattCW

B. That wider road would bring large investments to the intermediate area.

Source? Why don't we build 16 lane roads everywhere then and have our economy really take off?

Originally Posted by MattCW

C. it's usually state roads and not roads paid for by the property taxes specific to that middle community that would be used and thus come from the state taxation source. If that leads to an increase in property taxes, then it means a state-wide increase, but that's commensurate with the increased economic activity being generated. Unless we end up like Detroit, economic activities don't just move around, they enter new locations as an outgrowth of the old ones.

But it is not always a state road. Why should locals get screwed if their local roads are popular for people to use to drive through their town? Or why should a state get shafted if truckers are using the state-roads to pass through?


You seem to be making the case that government gets kind-of-close to collecting fees directly from the user in that each area taxes pay for it. So why are you afraid of taking that another step and having users pay for roads directly?

Are you against government building all housing and giving it away for free?

[MattCW]

Originally Posted by jsvh

No. My point is that it has 0 effect on your property taxes if you commute 1 mile or commute 45 miles.

Only if every place has the same property taxes. Property values and thus taxes typically increase when a major transportation artery is first built.

No one ever moves straight to a suburb? So wrong.

I admit, I may have oversimplified things somewhat. But your original scenario was also wrong. Rarely has any development just skipped over an area and gone on to outlying areas without the middle area receiving development and thus benefit.

Source? Why don't we build 16 lane roads everywhere then and have our economy really take off?

SR-124 Lawrenceville to Snellville. Used to be a sleepy little stretch of two-lane flyover country. They widened it to accommodate the commuters, and the area exploded with development. Also the entire GA-400 corridor, especially Perimeter and Sandy Springs once MARTA reached those two cities. 400 used to be a little two-lane highway, it's now a three-four lane road (with four-five lanes of traffic congestion) and development has increased after that expansion.

But it is not always a state road. Why should locals get screwed if their local roads are popular for people to use to drive through their town? Or why should a state get shafted if truckers are using the state-roads to pass through?

Who says they get screwed? Most of those people actually end up making a stop in that area at some point. Even if a few don't, enough do that it's rarely detrimental. As to the trucks, again, yes some trucks don't stop, but many do, and without building it for those that do both, the ones that do stop would not be accommodated.

You seem to be making the case that government gets kind-of-close to collecting fees directly from the user in that each area taxes pay for it. So why are you afraid of taking that another step and having users pay for roads directly?

Because I don't want to see everyone get a free ride. The better question is why are you afraid of ensuring that most people who benefit actually have to pay? Let me guess, you'd like nothing more to move to a town on a major thoroughfare, which is thus highly prosperous, with thousands of people living there, contributing to its tax base, but commuting into the big city, but you have a 1 mile intra-city commute thus you never touch that big mean road, and don't have to pay for it. Well don't you enjoy the benefits of that large prosperous town? Well why are you afraid to pay for it?

Are you against government building all housing and giving it away for free?

All housing? Certainly, that's a waste of taxpayer's money.