MARTA unveils its dream project list for November Referendum (Atlanta: taxation, oil)

[waronxmas]

The fortunate thing about the way the new funding model was constructed is that it plays the long game. It would take years to build up enough funds to build what we want. In other words, we'll have to wait and it should enough time to avoid having to deal with it while the country works through it's current bout of crazy.

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by waronxmas

The fortunate thing about the way the new funding model was constructed is that it plays the long game. It would take years to build up enough funds to build what we want. In other words, we'll have to wait and it should enough time to avoid having to deal with it while the country works through it's current bout of crazy.

Take out low interest bonds on future tax revenue.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by fourthwarden

We actually can't. The final project list is legally binding, in that it can only be added to with additional revenue, but not have projects removed.

Our best bet is to wait out for the next congress or president.

So we're locked in for 40 years.

Was that disclosed on the ballot?

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by Listennow32

Unfortunately we might have to... :/.. Last night I was looking at the Republican Platform which Trump is very likely to implement once in office (Chris Christe is leading his transition team and appointing the very same corporate entities that people feared that Hillary would put in if elected) and let me tell you.. despite this november win for transit we might be looking at some dark days in regards to federal funding and urban investment programs. Check out this following passage on "America on the Move" on page 4-5 (page 12 of the pdf). Essentially, they are going to remove the federal transit program which helps provide funding for entities like MARTA..

https://prod-static-ngop-pbl.s3.amaz...DRAFT_12_FINAL[1]-ben_1468872234.pdf

Some Key Quotes...

"The current administration has a different approach. It subordinates civil engineering to social engineering as it pursues an exclusively urban vision of dense housing and government transit. Its ill-named Livability Initiative is meant to "coerce people out of their cars."


"More than a quarter of the Fund's (Highway Trust Fund) spending is diverted from its original purpose. One fifth of its funds are spent on mass transit, an inherently local affair that serves only a small portion of the population concentrated in six big cities. Additional funds are used for bike-share programs, sidewalks, recreational trails, landscaping, historical renovations. Other beneficiaries of highway money are ferry boats, the federal lands access program, scenic byways, and education initiatives. These worthwhile enterprises should be funded through other sources. We propose to phase out the federal transit program and reform provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act which can delay and drive up costs for transportation projects"


"The federal government should allow private ventures to provide passenger service in the northeast corridor. The same holds true with regard to high-speed and intercity rail across the country. We reaffirm our intention to end federal support for boondoggles like California's high speed train to nowhere."
-

So their fix to this is cutting out the Public middle man and letting Private sector lead public transit. But what they obviously don't understand, as I'm reading in this document, is that public transit inherently is NOT a profit seeking venture, therefore, the impetus to not serve one area simply because its not profitable is not there. Now are those areas cut when there are budgetary shortfalls? Yes, but you'll be sure as soon as the funding slump is overcome, they are re-implemented. Versus a private system which may never implement a less traveled, but necessary route. What this likely means is that OUR taxpayer dollars will be going to a private company to subsidize and incentivize lesser covered route coverage versus just directly giving our dollars to a public entity.

Furthermore, private companies have no obligation to provide comprehensive information on services that are not their own. So if their is a PPP (public private partnership) and we get a mix of private transit (multiple companies running different services and a shell of the existing public MARTA entity running service) You may get spotty service and disjointed information within a traditional regional coverage area.

All and All, this has HUGE implications for the future of public transit in not just Atlanta, but in all American cities.

Hunker Down MARTA Army.. this is going to be a long one :/

I remember reading through a bit of this when it first came out. This policy is just, so incredibly ignorant and short sighted. It attempts to turn transit into a local affair, saying that it only benefits the few, when the reality is that transit is just one more component to the cities they're within. Those cities, in turn, really are the economic engines of our county. To take Georgia into example, the Atlanta metro is 55% of the state's population (and growing), and 65% of the state's GDP. How much does MARTA and GRTA serve the state in external costs? How many jobs get access to more talent because of transit? How much road maintenance is saved from people taking the bus or train? How much is air quality improved? How many MORE jobs and homes are supported, through density, than could have otherwise been without transit?

Point is, to INVEST in your cities, IS TO INVEST IN YOUR COUNTRY. Same goes for investing in the travel between cities, extended to rail.

Instead they want to cut it all. Instead of doing something sensible like establishing a rail trust fund such that the semantics of allocating money is fixed, they want to make it a 'private' endeavor, while keeping the SUBSIDY FOR ROADS which entices sprawl and low-density, and which makes transit competition in a profitable way, nearly impossible.

They're not striking a victory for the free-market or libertarianism, they're just continuing the same type of social-engineering that they claim to be fighting.

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by arjay57

So we're locked in for 40 years.

Was that disclosed on the ballot?

See sample ballot language below

Shall an additional sales tax of one-half percent be collected in the City of Atlanta for the purpose of significantly expanding and enhancing MARTA transit service in Atlanta?

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by arjay57

So we're locked in for 40 years.

Was that disclosed on the ballot?

It was disclosed through the entire process, from when the text of the law was first published, through the levels of refining the list.

Yes, we are, in fact, locked in, because if we weren't then people would be complaining about the possibility to change the projects away from what were promised for the vote.

[cqholt]

Good job to all the citizens of Atlanta who voted for both these important referendums

In a statement echoing similar sentiments, Reed said that by approving the referenda, voters "put the city of Atlanta in a position to be proactive, flexible and adaptable. We’re laying the groundwork now to ensure we can build the city of the future that we all want."

Mayor Reed, Beltline Partnership applaud Atlanta for tax vote outcome - Curbed Atlanta

[bu2]

Originally Posted by fourthwarden

I remember reading through a bit of this when it first came out. This policy is just, so incredibly ignorant and short sighted. It attempts to turn transit into a local affair, saying that it only benefits the few, when the reality is that transit is just one more component to the cities they're within. Those cities, in turn, really are the economic engines of our county. To take Georgia into example, the Atlanta metro is 55% of the state's population (and growing), and 65% of the state's GDP. How much does MARTA and GRTA serve the state in external costs? How many jobs get access to more talent because of transit? How much road maintenance is saved from people taking the bus or train? How much is air quality improved? How many MORE jobs and homes are supported, through density, than could have otherwise been without transit?

Point is, to INVEST in your cities, IS TO INVEST IN YOUR COUNTRY. Same goes for investing in the travel between cities, extended to rail.

Instead they want to cut it all. Instead of doing something sensible like establishing a rail trust fund such that the semantics of allocating money is fixed, they want to make it a 'private' endeavor, while keeping the SUBSIDY FOR ROADS which entices sprawl and low-density, and which makes transit competition in a profitable way, nearly impossible.

They're not striking a victory for the free-market or libertarianism, they're just continuing the same type of social-engineering that they claim to be fighting.

The Obama administration added "economic development" as a criteria. That is an impossible to prove assertion. As a result we got a bunch of white elephant streetcars around the country that suck up funds from transportation solutions that actually work and put into trendy things that don't make transportation sense.

If states or cities want to do that, they should do it with local dollars.

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by bu2

The Obama administration added "economic development" as a criteria. That is an impossible to prove assertion. As a result we got a bunch of white elephant streetcars around the country that suck up funds from transportation solutions that actually work and put into trendy things that don't make transportation sense.

If states or cities want to do that, they should do it with local dollars.

Well, the citizens of Atlanta just passed a referendum to expand that white elephant and build out a city-wide streetcar/LRT network.

[fieldm]

http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/n...-all-dems.html

Gingrich, himself a Republican candidate for president in 2012, said Trump also will probably bring a major infrastructure funding bill to Congress and pay for it by expanding the sale of oil and gas drilling leases, a policy he said would pit municipal leaders across the country – many of whom are Democrats – against the Sierra Club. He suggested the huge electoral victories Republicans scored in the coal country of Appalachia will prompt a quick end to the Democrat-led “war on coal.”