Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Highways have no operational costs? potholes, bridges, traffic signals, mowing, trash removal, guardrail replacement, etc. They are sold to the public with little to no O&M costs, while transit projects are required to include their O&M cost.
Texas is going to have a difficult time when all their highway expansion reaches the end of their life at once.
You're right.... but also not correct that large federal highway projects don't look at their operations costs.
Highways do have an operational costs. HEROs, cleaning, ramp meters, ITS corridors, accident first responders, short-term maintenance, etc... However, cost comparison transit is much heavier, because it is labor and energy intensive for the government to operate.
What I would challenge you to consider more is dividing up the difference between long-term capitol costs and actual operations costs. All projects require rebuilding at the end of their operational life.
Buses will eventually have to be bought new at the end of the original's operational life. Same for trains. Same for the tracks the run on. Same for the concrete of roads and under tracks. Overpass bridges eventually will be rebuilt.
With that said highway planning required to keep in mind their operations costs, just as transit does by federal planning standards.
However, all projects have an end of operational life. Whether it is 10-15 years for a bus or 50-75 years for a basic overpass bridge. Of course, we have more people and more commerce as time goes on, so we can afford those capitol costs. Detroit (city) is one exception where they were trying to reduce some of their network, as they had fewer people and businesses to pay for it.
So transit and roads alike don't plan for the end of life replacement costs, as that is to be decided years later when costs might be different. However, both factor in the operations costs in most cases, just like what was brought up in the I-285 northern expansion of HOT lanes costs.
In all the amount we've been funding, all costs included, has been declining the last several decades. The GDOT monitors how much it needs to spend on it's existing infrastructure alignments intensively. I'm sure Texas does too.
There is a lot more red and yellow than green on that map. And many people reported that some of the areas on that map that are lighter green were far worse than before.
But the green areas are the most densely populated.
Intown Atlanta was great while the highways were closed. Extra train frequency. People and bikes in the streets with a lot less cars.
The highways rammed through intown neighborhoods do a lot more harm than benefit to those neighborhoods.
People from the suburbs should not expect to be entitled to a fast, free driving commute through intown at the expense of us folk in town (in tax dollars to maintain streets for cars, health quality loss from exhaust, reduced quality of life from all the loud cars clogging the street, and loss of life itself from getting run down by cars).
If you are insistent on needing to drive to work from the suburbs, you should probably find another job near you in the suburbs. You may have to make some sacrifices in the position since businesses are finding much more success targeting transit connected intown areas.
Being realistic here. Highways are far cheaper than just about any form of rail in America. It's one of the biggest reason rail expansion in just about every major metro in this country is for the most part at a hault.
Also even after their initial cost, highways have no operational cost and have a giant return of investment to the local economy and its tax base. This is why they're so heavily favored by politicians.
Then you have nothing to fear from letting users pay costs directly do you?
You think transit is expensive? Is the government really running the highway network any more efficiently? Do you need to be reminded that just for the cost of the 285/400 highway updates we could double the miles of MARTA rail in the metro?
I say bring on the level playing field. Let the people vote wit their wallet. Get government out of running the transportation industry. Transit will thrive like private transit companies did back before we started dumping massive tax subsidies in for car infrastructure.
Then you have nothing to fear from letting users pay costs directly do you?
You think transit is expensive? Is the government really running the highway network any more efficiently? Do you need to be reminded that just for the cost of the 285/400 highway updates we could double the miles of MARTA rail in the metro?
I say bring on the level playing field. Let the people vote wit their wallet. Get government out of running the transportation industry. Transit will thrive like private transit companies did back before we started dumping massive tax subsidies in for car infrastructure.
The government in general has little interest in maintaining either network which is why more and more tollroads are appearing than interstates or freeways but in my opinion it's more if a political corruption matter of money falling in the wrong hands than an actual infrastructural crisis.
Also after all final costs are considered I highly doubt we could build 40+ miles of heavy rail at the cost of those interchanges (which are also largely more expensive due to reworking existing infrastructure).
I want rail expansion but not because its cheaper but because overall the metro needs transit diversity.
The government in general has little interest in maintaining either network which is why more and more tollroads are appearing than interstates or freeways but in my opinion it's more if a political corruption matter of money falling in the wrong hands than an actual infrastructural crisis.
Also after all final costs are considered I highly doubt we could build 40+ miles of heavy rail at the cost of those interchanges (which are also largely more expensive due to reworking existing infrastructure).
I want rail expansion but not because its cheaper but because overall the metro needs transit diversity.
You just have feelings and doubts about costs. In terms of real dollars being spent, highways are more expensive and it's users should be paying those costs directly so people can decide for themselves if they prefer those dollars to go to other options like transit fares or living closer to work.
But the green areas are the most densely populated.
Well, you're precisely wrong. Atlanta Density Map. The most densely populated areas are Midtown and a few sections west of the connector, north of Ivan Allen, most of which is caked in dark red. The areas in green show modest density at best.
And I drove in much of that green area in the northeast part of the city throughout the closure, as I was working in Norcross and I live in NW Atlanta. That area being better than usual is a farce. It was a disaster.
Quote:
People from the suburbs should not expect to be entitled to a fast, free driving commute through intown at the expense of us folk in town (in tax dollars to maintain streets for cars, health quality loss from exhaust, reduced quality of life from all the loud cars clogging the street, and loss of life itself from getting run down by cars).
You do realize that probably 90% or more of the people in town drive, too, right? And they go outside CoA limits many times. "Those of us in the city" are not paying an excessive amount over anyone else, especially for highways.
Quote:
If you are insistent on needing to drive to work from the suburbs, you should probably find another job near you in the suburbs.
Well, it's been shown on numerous occasions that suburb-to-suburb traffic is far higher than suburb-to-city traffic. So, exactly that is already happening.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsvh
You just have feelings and doubts about costs. In terms of real dollars being spent, highways are more expensive and it's users should be paying those costs directly so people can decide for themselves if they prefer those dollars to go to other options like transit fares or living closer to work.
Wait, wait, wait...are you suggesting that transit is overall cheaper to build than highways?
And why do you keep suggesting that only road and highway users should be paying their full costs? How much do you think they are not paying. Please use actual numbers so as to be believable.
Sam, How much do you pay for roads to drive to the grocery store? How much will you pay to drive through that new multi Billion dollar section of 285 / 400? How much do you pay to drive through it today? Because I think you are directly paying zero. And I think the average person in the city is paying more indirect / taxes for all roads than the person in the suburbs dispite driving on them significantly less miles.
I also love how you post a map showing where traffic was worse, then when I point out all the places your map showed it being better suddenly it is a "farce".
Sam, How much do you pay for roads to drive to the grocery store? How much will you pay to drive through that new multi Billion dollar section of 285 / 400? How much do you pay to drive through it today? Because I think you are directly paying zero. And I think the average person in the city is paying more indirect / taxes for all roads than the person in the suburbs dispite driving on them significantly less miles.
I am paying fuel taxes. Approximately $9 every time I fill up my car. I fill up my car approximately once every nine days. About 42 fill-ups per year, or $378 per year in fuel taxes, which go directly to pay for interstates, state highways, and state routes, which are the roads most commuters are using. And I live ITP, so I drive less than a suburban commuter. Commuters are paying even more. Oh, and since my wife also pays those fuel taxes, our household fuel tax is about double that $378.
My Atlanta property taxes for 2018 (for an average price house) were $2,030.56. $1,326.14 of that was for schools. $30.50 of that was for parks. That leaves $673.92 for Atlanta general and bonds. So unless more than half of that part of my property taxes is going towards roads, which I doubt, I'm pretty sure I spend more on fuel taxes to fund roads than I do on property taxes to fund roads. I guarantee you that all the other costs of running this city eat up a lot more of that last bit than roads. But remember...we gotta add my wife in. So our two fuel taxes together are more than the amount of Atlanta property tax that pays for everything outside of schools and parks.
You are fat, plain wrong that your property taxes pay more for roads than drivers are paying unless you choose to pick up a bunch of expensive property. In that case, that's your own fault and no one cares.
If you want to remove all fuel taxes and do a direct toll on interstates, just because it'll make you feel better, then go right ahead. I will tell you what it will cause: more people driving in your neighborhood and other neighborhoods. The city streets will probably never be tolled. Maybe, maybe a small area in downtown or something.
But...get this: I pay WELL more than $378 per year towards MARTA tax. In fact, the MARTA tax raised some $430 million for 2018. Who is paying that? Hint: mostly people that do not use the system. That, right there, is the massively subsidized transit on the backs of others. Why are you so up in arms that drivers do pay hundreds of dollars per year towards the roads they use, covering the lion's share of the costs, but think that it's okay that transit riders pay only a small fraction of their costs? How can you point your finger at "smug drivers taking from us", while you are literally taking far more? This is straight up Trump-style right here.
Quote:
I also love how you post a map showing where traffic was worse, then when I point out all the places your map showed it being better suddenly it is a "farce".
It was your map. Numerous people called some of the areas a farce. The northeast ITP was most certainly not better. You made it sound like most of the city fared very well. That is an absolute falsehood.
I know you pay taxes towards roads. I pay taxes towards roads too. I didn't ask that.
I will repeat: How much do you pay for roads to drive to the grocery store? How much will you pay to drive through that new multi Billion dollar section of 285 / 400? How much do you pay to drive through it today? Because I think you are directly paying zero.
And more relevant to this thread: How much did you pay to drive through this section of I-85? How much did you pay towards roads to drive around it? How much did you pay to drive on it after millions of dollars in repairs were completed?
I know you pay taxes towards roads. I pay taxes towards roads too. I didn't ask that.
I will repeat: How much do you pay for roads to drive to the grocery store? How much will you pay to drive through that new multi Billion dollar section of 285 / 400? How much do you pay to drive through it today? Because I think you are directly paying zero.
And more relevant to this thread: How much did you pay to drive through this section of I-85? How much did you pay towards roads to drive around it? How much did you pay to drive on it after millions of dollars in repairs were completed?
So heres question for you, how much do you want sami to pay for that billion dollar section of I-285 and GA-400?
And after you address that, also address how many vehicles use that section vs the grand total of drivers (statewide) that are paying toward it?
After we address that, let's also not forget that MARTA rail is also heavily subsidized by majorities who do not use it...but they still pay for it...and I can guarantee you if they didn't the system would be unlikely exist today.
It's called public infrastructure because the public pays for it and the public benefits from it regardless of whether or not they use it directly.
Infrastructure of just about any type is expensive. It's pretty clear however that you are upset that this money went to a road and not transit, despite that the road improvement on this junction was highly necessary. They do need to expand rail however dont pretend that the cost to expand MARTA rail would be any cheaper than this interchange.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
potholes, bridges, traffic signals, mowing, trash removal, guardrail replacement, etc. They are sold to the public with little to no O&M costs, while transit projects are required to include their O&M cost.
