Trump's infrastructure plan and the ATL (how much, taxes, airports)

[glovenyc]

Originally Posted by flamadiddle

Well, that didn't take long to turn into a Trump bashing thread. lol

After all of the Atlanta bashing you've done since moving back to Shangri Chi, you just can't get "the A" out of your system.

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by brown_dog_us

Trump's plan will be heavy on roads and bridges, and light on mass transit. Therefore, it will be some lean years for MARTA.

Originally Posted by Gulch

So...business as usual?

If we're really lucky, we can time the really big projects to the next administration, and hopefully the funding be reaffirmed then.

The real tragedy is how many smaller projects may be stalled much longer than they need to be, like the next Streetcar / Light-rail extensions from the current loop, new BRT routes, even commuter rail.

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by fourthwarden

If we're really lucky, we can time the really big projects to the next administration, and hopefully the funding be reaffirmed then.

The real tragedy is how many smaller projects may be stalled much longer than they need to be, like the next Streetcar / Light-rail extensions from the current loop, new BRT routes, even commuter rail.

Keep on working on the LPA and EIS, just like they have been all this time.

[MikeHonchoATL]

Originally Posted by fourthwarden

This administration has proposed defunding:

TIGER, the mechanism for smaller transportation projects like our streetcar, the westside beltline, and street rebuilds as well as any number of other projects in this state alone.

New Starts, the mechanism for larger transportation projects that we were going to use to fund large high-capacity transit projects like the Clifton Corridor, light rail on the BeltLine (and elsewhere in the city), I-20 East, and even Connect 400.

Amtrak, which would not only completely remove ALL interstate passenger rail service in our state (Crescent, Silver Star, Silver Meteor, and Palmetto), but destroy the possibility of expanding future interstate passenger rail too.

Good.

Defund all of that stuff. If it warrants investment, the local and state level can fund it. There is no reason for the federal government to be playing sugar daddy to all of these pet projects.

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by cqholt

Keep on working on the LPA and EIS, just like they have been all this time.

Right. As long as there's an FTA to still submit the EIS and LPAs to, of course. Can even have the engineering docs pretty much finished by that point, too.

Still, we've been ready, at least financially, to go ahead with the next streetcar extensions. That'll likely stall out (continue to be stalled) until TIGER or similar is put back (should it be removed).

[cwkimbro]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Well, Trump must have said a hundred times that he had a trillion dollar infrastructure plan to rebuild America and create tens of thousands of good jobs. He said it again just a few weeks ago.

Why would the man be saying all this if he's not going through with it? Even the Democrats are for it.

Well that is ultimately the problem with the Trump presidency.

It doesn't matter if you're a supporter, not a supporter, a Republican, or a Democrat. No one can take what he actually says with face value anymore.

He switches his opinion frequently. He tells people to not take everything he said literally/seriously, but than sometimes tells people they should have.

He does not stick to a clear, concise message.

This is a problem for many people, companies, states, foreign powers, etc... Someone can shift gears on policy goals, but if you know what to expect you can adjust accordingly.... doesn't matter what side of the aisle it is.

So far Trump has not done anything to introduce more infrastructure spending. He has expressed a desire to privatize, but not workable plan that will make companies want to be players (ie. there has to be a proper profit incentive + control to make sure the spending is a worthwhile goal on public property).

He is defunding funding mechanisms on the very things that would grow infrastructure when he claimed he originally wanted to increase funding.

.... or maybe his comments were limited to airports and he waited until after the airlines already started making sizable investments of their terminal spaces in airports.

[cwkimbro]

Originally Posted by MikeHonchoATL

Good.

Defund all of that stuff. If it warrants investment, the local and state level can fund it. There is no reason for the federal government to be playing sugar daddy to all of these pet projects.

Not good.


If that is the policy goal he needs to make it known this is his intention way in advance and he needs to not shift funds to other things and make sure that states can 1:1 pick up the same taxing to increase investments in their states.


Even then, it will be particularly problematic as many interstates pass through sparsely populated states that can afford the maintenance on transportation infrastructure people need to cross to get from region-to-region. (ie. to move goods between ports in New Orleans and the Midwest, Atlanta, and eastern seaboard it is mostly going to transit through Mississippi.... but with little economic growth and cash flow and yet it is a relatively poor state with a lower population).

This is why the federal government traditional spends money on infrastructure that affects the whole country (ie. the port of Savannah river deepening isn't just for Georgia, it is for midwestern and inland economies that depend on east coast ports too).

It is designed so we don't shoulder the full costs, but everything is built in a manner that everyone can use it.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by cwkimbro

Well that is ultimately the problem with the Trump presidency.

It doesn't matter if you're a supporter, not a supporter, a Republican, or a Democrat. No one can take what he actually says with face value anymore.

He switches his opinion frequently. He tells people to not take everything he said literally/seriously, but than sometimes tells people they should have.

He does not stick to a clear, concise message.

Well, it is ridiculous for a man to promised something over and over and then not stick to it.

I have heard Trump countless times say things like "Trust me" or "Believe me" but now y'all are saying he isn't going to do the $1 trillion infrastructure program. If he doesn't, that is just plain bogosity and that's putting it mildly.

[tikigod311]

Originally Posted by MikeHonchoATL

Good.

Defund all of that stuff. If it warrants investment, the local and state level can fund it. There is no reason for the federal government to be playing sugar daddy to all of these pet projects.

I'm actually on board with this idea as the Federal government should be kept at bay as much as possible as to not empower folks like our current Pres, but not ready to accept it.

After all these years, we finally approve transportation funding and now this! No sir, I will not accept that timing. Plus, we all know as soon as this administration is out, that funding is back in. This is just the lady luck taking a dump on Atlanta in regards to timing.

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by MikeHonchoATL

Good.

Defund all of that stuff. If it warrants investment, the local and state level can fund it. There is no reason for the federal government to be playing sugar daddy to all of these pet projects.

That's not at all how this works.


Amtrak provides a social service for the communities through which it runs. This was the intent from the very beginning, as Amtrak was the result of the Nation deciding that there was value in maintaining a national passenger rail system in a time when the railroads were killing it off. From day one it was meant as a social service, to provide mobility for those who might not otherwise be able to have it.

How do you expect states along the route to get along? By what metric do you determine what one state's 'fair share' is of the cost of the line? What happens when one state along a line decides it doesn't want to fund it, but all the other states do? Amtrak is a federal service because it operates on a national scale. To end its federal funding will kill these routes, plain and simple.


TIGER and New Starts are how a city, state, or town may go about building projects that they may not be able to put forward the funds for otherwise. Giving that money 'back' to the states doesn't do anything either, since we all know that it won't go to transit. In many states' cases, that money 'back' won't even fund the projects that they want to fund if it did.

That's how collective funding works. We all pitch in to provide funding for projects that some may very well not have had the opportunity to build in the first place. These are complete streets, freight rail improvements, transit lines, new stations, and a whole pile of other things that now, more than ever in the past decades, are catalysts for economic development. They are chances for places that are under performing to not only receive economic development magnets, but the infrastructure to handle future growth, and bring in sustainable development that we've been foregoing for too long.


Of all the projects to create strong, sustainable economic situations all across the country, the rail and transit projects are the most direct. We should be doing everything we can as a nation to feed these into not only our main cities, but our secondary and tertiary cities as well.

After all, it is in the federal government's best interests to facilitate sustainable economic growth.

Originally Posted by tikigod311

I'm actually on board with this idea as the Federal government should be kept at bay as much as possible as to not empower folks like our current Pres, but not ready to accept it.

After all these years, we finally approve transportation funding and now this! No sir, I will not accept that timing. Plus, we all know as soon as this administration is out, that funding is back in. This is just the lady luck taking a dump on Atlanta in regards to timing.

'Kept at Bay' != removing all funding for alternatives to roads that are largely established by the local municipalities in the first place. All it's doing is killing opportunity for places who can't afford the up-front cost of a project from building projects that may very well bring them much needed economic growth.

Originally Posted by arjay57

Well, it is ridiculous for a man to promised something over and over and then not stick to it.

I have heard Trump countless times say things like "Trust me" or "Believe me" but now y'all are saying he isn't going to do the $1 trillion infrastructure program. If he doesn't, that is just plain bogosity and that's putting it mildly.

Welcome to the current administration. This is nothing new for him nor his team.