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.
You're still loosing operational capacity, and forcing a transfer rather than extending the existing system to allow seamless integration.
LRT is fine and dandy for a lot of things, but for backbones in some of, if not the, highest trafficked corridors in the metro, we really should be using something better. Especially when we have an established system in place to build off of.
Sure you save money now, but given how much the metro is projected to grow, I just don't see those reduced costs as being needed. They're short-term savings with long-term consequences.
Gwinnett would be able to easily afford a heavy-rail extension to Sugarloaf from Doraville, and commuter rail lines to Buford and Lawrenceville, and a myriad of bus rapid transit routes throughout the county if they paid the 1% MARTA sales tax. They don't need to save the money. There's no real benefit for it.
This is partially incorrect....
On HUGE flaw to transit planning in the region the last 10 years has been how much it ignores regional context and only looks at things on a line-by-line basis.
If we ever actually built a full regional system, whether or not a transfer is forced or not depends on both the user's destination and how we built other parts of the system.
Concept 3 and other variations of it had used LRT (regional rail) for everything for a route from Cobb, I-285 top-end, Emory/CDC, and GA400N, as well as Gwinnett.
Technically trains could could potentially run between all of these alignments transfer free.
But at this point you're picking and choosing what/who is transferring and who isn't
capacity of LRT is a bit nuanced too. A single train car has lower capacity, yes. It is narrower and designed to fit on a road if need be. Of course, they don't have to be designed that way either. LRT has flexibility. They usually are, because many want to maintain that flexibility.
However, LRT offers more lee-way in train timings too (often driven by a driver and not a computerized system). Usage increases, so you add trains and decrease headways, better yet... increase final destinations on other routes within those lower headways.
There are also LRT lines in this country and in the world where the ridership per mile surpasses our current MARTA HRT lines. LRT systems have been known to carry many people in certain contexts, so they are capable for our needs if we chose them.
What they don't do is carry the amount of passengers NYC's MTA has, but we are so-so far away from that, it is hardly a concern.
However, all of this is expanding the argument beyond the point I was trying to get at. The direction of the thread was misunderstanding the cost comparisons, which is important to understand in comparing any alignment we ever do an LPA for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fourthwarden
s.
Gwinnett would be able to easily afford a heavy-rail extension to Sugarloaf from Doraville, and commuter rail lines to Buford and Lawrenceville, and a myriad of bus rapid transit routes throughout the county if they paid the 1% MARTA sales tax. They don't need to save the money. There's no real benefit for it.
MARTA has never shown Gwinnett any indication that they would do this or make this possible. They only showed an indication that a vote for MARTA in the pass means a single stub line to Gwinnett Place and their current and past actions within their current service district shows low levels of transit access OTP, while money is shifted to the core. So really this is a moot point, unless there is a major shake-up of the status-quo.
I say allow Cobb and Gwinnett to join MARTA at a 1/2 penny funding level. And allow them to get less-urban, non-HRT based MARTA transit solutions. (Except for a 1-station extension of the Gold Line barely into Gwinnett, and a 3-station extension of the Blue Line in Atlanta/Fulton, with the last station at Six Flags barely in Cobb).
Then everybody wins. Cobb and Gwinnett still get to pay less sales tax than Fulton/DeKalb, not feeling like they're being ripped off by MARTA or City of Atlanta, and they still get to be heavy rail-averse. But, they still join and participate in the metro transit system, which can now serve and operate in all 5 of its intended counties. And they get some mass transit.
However, LRT offers more lee-way in train timings too (often driven by a driver and not a computerized system). Usage increases, so you add trains and decrease headways, better yet... increase final destinations on other routes within those lower headways.
Human-operated rail service has longer dwell times and extended headways (to deal with potential human error.) ATC is what bullet trains in Europe and Asia use.
Quote:
MARTA has never shown Gwinnett any indication that they would do this or make this possible. They only showed an indication that a vote for MARTA in the pass means a single stub line to Gwinnett Place and their current and past actions within their current service district shows low levels of transit access OTP, while money is shifted to the core. So really this is a moot point, unless there is a major shake-up of the status-quo.
I do not recall a study by MARTA, that showed transit funds being shifted from Gwinnett County to Atlanta's core? Please provide a link if I missed something?
I say allow Cobb and Gwinnett to join MARTA at a 1/2 penny funding level. And allow them to get less-urban, non-HRT based MARTA transit solutions. (Except for a 1-station extension of the Gold Line barely into Gwinnett, and a 3-station extension of the Blue Line in Atlanta/Fulton, with the last station at Six Flags barely in Cobb).
Then everybody wins. Cobb and Gwinnett still get to pay less sales tax than Fulton/DeKalb, not feeling like they're being ripped off by MARTA or City of Atlanta, and they still get to be heavy rail-averse. But, they still join and participate in the metro transit system, which can now serve and operate in all 5 of its intended counties. And they get some mass transit.
I don't see what this would do? 1/4 mile from existing station? Huh??
What I would like to see, is an option for existing (and future) CID's (and cities) to join MARTA permanently, including allowing rail, even if their county (Cobb/Gwinnett of course) itself is not a member of MARTA.
But what I'd like to see more than that, is Cobb and Gwinnett joining MARTA at 1/2 penny funding and service level. It could be a great compromise.
We were talking earlier in this thread about funding tiers, well maybe the MARTA tiers should look like this:
Atlanta - 1.5%
Fulton/DeKalb/Clayton - 1%
Gwinnett/Cobb - .5%
And perhaps Fulton and DeKalb could fund their planned heavy rail extensions with something other than increasing the MARTA sales tax. Like property tax or whatever.
Human-operated rail service has longer dwell times and extended headways (to deal with potential human error.) ATC is what bullet trains in Europe and Asia use.
I do not recall a study by MARTA, that showed transit funds being shifted from Gwinnett County to Atlanta's core? Please provide a link if I missed something?
It is because you're not paying attention to the entirety of my statement. Not everything, in fact most things, won't be directly told through a study. It doesn't exist. You have to look for outside information.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwkimbro
MARTA has never shown Gwinnett any indication that they would do this or make this possible. They only showed an indication that a vote for MARTA in the pass means a single stub line to Gwinnett Place and their current and past actions within their current service district shows low levels of transit access OTP, while money is shifted to the core. So really this is a moot point, unless there is a major shake-up of the status-quo.
The emboldened is true. They came to the county with a map showing a single HRT extension to Gwinnett Place years back when the county was getting more serious at looking at a LRT line before the recession happened.
The underlined doesn't need a study. It is a reality and self-evident. If you want to argue otherwise... go ahead and try.
Now add the fact that Gwinnett County generates more retail sales than Fulton County and mix that with current transit use in MARTA's OTP areas is very week + what has been proposed is far under what they keep in the core of Atlanta... it is self-evident that more money will come in from Gwinnett County via a sales tax, while getting lower levels of service. One does not need a study or to even be a genius to understand this.
That is why I discussed in great detail earlier about the comparisons between property tax vs sales tax and differences in funding, like schools.
There is a reason I want to see some funding shifted onto property taxes and the state. The biggest land value winners of transit are often companies that are low in retail sales, high in property tax revenue, and high in white collar employment. It is a big tax revenue/spending mismatch.
Gwinnett happens to be higher in retail sales tax income, but lower in property revenue. It is why Gwinnett's schools spend less money per pupil and also why we depend on SPLOST and ESPLOST to build our roads, parks, and most funding for new schools. Comparatively, Atlanta city schools rely mostly on property taxes to build onto their schools.
I discussed this in great detail earlier and it went mostly ignored. I will not repeat myself further. But I went through this in greater detail earlier for more info.
On HUGE flaw to transit planning in the region the last 10 years has been how much it ignores regional context and only looks at things on a line-by-line basis.
I agree, I don't think you're making any better suggestion, though.
Quote:
If we ever actually built a full regional system, whether or not a transfer is forced or not depends on both the user's destination and how we built other parts of the system.
Right, which is why I've consistently insisted on heavy rail for Cobb, Gwinnett, North Fulton, and the I-285 top-end routes. That way you are 100% interchangeable with the rest of the system.
Quote:
Concept 3 and other variations of it had used LRT (regional rail) for everything for a route from Cobb, I-285 top-end, Emory/CDC, and GA400N, as well as Gwinnett.
I know they did, and I don't agree with their suggestions. They also only had BRT running from Cumberland to Arts center, and had a short LRT stub running between Stonecrest and Sigman Road.
For a large part, Concept 3 is a conglomeration of plans, prioritizing the 'currently proposed' options over, perhaps, what should be used. At the time Connect Cobb had been downgraded to a BRT route, and the Gwinnett CIDs had published their LRT proposal, and so both were used in place of other options.
Quote:
Technically trains could could potentially run between all of these alignments transfer free.
But at this point you're picking and choosing what/who is transferring and who isn't
So, you could have all alignments be transfer free, but you'd have to pick and choose who transfers? What?
Quote:
capacity of LRT is a bit nuanced too. A single train car has lower capacity, yes. It is narrower and designed to fit on a road if need be. Of course, they don't have to be designed that way either. LRT has flexibility. They usually are, because many want to maintain that flexibility.
But the closer you get towards HRT, the more it costs like HRT. Besides, that flexibility still reduces capacity as interior space is reduced to accommodate larger driver-cabs on the individual vehicles. Contrast this with MARTA's potential future open-gangway trains, and you're looking at significant differences.
As with the comparison of buses to streetcars, more flexibility isn't always the better option.
Quote:
However, LRT offers more lee-way in train timings too (often driven by a driver and not a computerized system). Usage increases, so you add trains and decrease headways, better yet... increase final destinations on other routes within those lower headways.
None of that is unique to LRT. In fact, as you've described it, it's really a disadvantage. As CQ said, computerized train control allows for much closer-operating service.
Quote:
There are also LRT lines in this country and in the world where the ridership per mile surpasses our current MARTA HRT lines. LRT systems have been known to carry many people in certain contexts, so they are capable for our needs if we chose them.
I don't doubt there are, but there are plenty of HRT lines that surpass those. Even so, most of those LRT lines that you talk about are closer to metro-level services, and thus their costs are closer to HRT.
Quote:
What they don't do is carry the amount of passengers NYC's MTA has, but we are so-so far away from that, it is hardly a concern.
You know, I'm not actually so far away from a capacity concern. Our rush-hour trains are already nearly full to capacity. At peak points, given both the long-term growth expected for the metro, and the existing traffic, I can absolutely see the surge-capacity of HRT being needed over LRT.
Quote:
However, all of this is expanding the argument beyond the point I was trying to get at. The direction of the thread was misunderstanding the cost comparisons, which is important to understand in comparing any alignment we ever do an LPA for.
True, though even that point seems to be misdirected, in my opinion.
Quote:
MARTA has never shown Gwinnett any indication that they would do this or make this possible. They only showed an indication that a vote for MARTA in the pass means a single stub line to Gwinnett Place and their current and past actions within their current service district shows low levels of transit access OTP, while money is shifted to the core. So really this is a moot point, unless there is a major shake-up of the status-quo.
I talk about this below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwkimbro
The emboldened is true. They came to the county with a map showing a single HRT extension to Gwinnett Place years back when the county was getting more serious at looking at a LRT line before the recession happened.
Wait, do you mean the 2007 Discussion Paper that was 1) focused on a specific corridor rather than the county at large, and 2) explicitly stated that required further studies would examine other technologies instead of HRT, to include LRT?
That one?
I can guarantee you that if Gwinnett asked MARTA for a transit feasibility study for the whole county, it would get a much more interesting and diversified response. More so if a few priorities were mentioned from the get-go. It would certainly be more than just the heavy-rail line, though.
Quote:
The underlined doesn't need a study. It is a reality and self-evident. If you want to argue otherwise... go ahead and try.
I mean, yeah it's true, but it ignores how many years worth of effort to change that? I-20 East and GA 400 extensions have been in planning for years now. Then there have been the other studies such as the South Fulton Parkway corridor. Oh, and then there's the Clayton High-Capacity Corridor that was only able to get started in the past few years.
It's not for a lack of trying that MARTA hasn't started / built high-capacity transit further out. It's for a lack of funding.
In the mean time, buses have been in place for much longer. They're not perfect, but that's not at all unique to OTP.
Quote:
Now add the fact that Gwinnett County generates more retail sales than Fulton County and mix that with current transit use in MARTA's OTP areas is very week + what has been proposed is far under what they keep in the core of Atlanta... it is self-evident that more money will come in from Gwinnett County via a sales tax, while getting lower levels of service. One does not need a study or to even be a genius to understand this.
No. This is baseless fear-mongering. Just look at how Clayton was handled, where it was negotiated how its sales tax would be used within Clayton County. Just look at how the City of Atlanta's own tax increase was handled, with legal distinctions as to the use of projects based on their location within the city.
The actual actions of the agency go completely against what you're claiming. Gwinnett, like Clayton, would have plenty of leverage and opportunity to negotiate and set the use of the funds collected within its boarders.
Quote:
That is why I discussed in great detail earlier about the comparisons between property tax vs sales tax and differences in funding, like schools.
But your base assumptions are patently false, though. They have no actual evidence to support them.
Quote:
There is a reason I want to see some funding shifted onto property taxes and the state. The biggest land value winners of transit are often companies that are low in retail sales, high in property tax revenue, and high in white collar employment. It is a big tax revenue/spending mismatch.
Yeah, sales taxes are regressive and it would be great to have a suite of other funding sources to make it more equitable, but that's not a good reason to not join MARTA.
MARTA's laws can be changed just as easily as taking the legislative action to not only create a brand new agency, but give it powers few in the state have.
In the mean time, at least Gwinnett can start down the path of improving transit.
Quote:
Gwinnett happens to be higher in retail sales tax income, but lower in property revenue. It is why Gwinnett's schools spend less money per pupil and also why we depend on SPLOST and ESPLOST to build our roads, parks, and most funding for new schools. Comparatively, Atlanta city schools rely mostly on property taxes to build onto their schools.
Well, the county can fix that by increasing property taxes. It doesn't require a brand new transit agency to fix those discrepancies within the county.
In the mean time, Gwinnett would get a lot of transit improvements for their joining, while still having a barrier of 2% to work with even with the MARTA tax.
Quote:
I discussed this in great detail earlier and it went mostly ignored. I will not repeat myself further. But I went through this in greater detail earlier for more info.
I agree, I don't think you're making any better suggestion, though.
Right, which is why I've consistently insisted on heavy rail for Cobb, Gwinnett, North Fulton, and the I-285 top-end routes. That way you are 100% interchangeable with the rest of the system.
I know they did, and I don't agree with their suggestions. They also only had BRT running from Cumberland to Arts center, and had a short LRT stub running between Stonecrest and Sigman Road.
For a large part, Concept 3 is a conglomeration of plans, prioritizing the 'currently proposed' options over, perhaps, what should be used. At the time Connect Cobb had been downgraded to a BRT route, and the Gwinnett CIDs had published their LRT proposal, and so both were used in place of other options.
So, you could have all alignments be transfer free, but you'd have to pick and choose who transfers? What?
But the closer you get towards HRT, the more it costs like HRT. Besides, that flexibility still reduces capacity as interior space is reduced to accommodate larger driver-cabs on the individual vehicles. Contrast this with MARTA's potential future open-gangway trains, and you're looking at significant differences.
As with the comparison of buses to streetcars, more flexibility isn't always the better option.
None of that is unique to LRT. In fact, as you've described it, it's really a disadvantage. As CQ said, computerized train control allows for much closer-operating service.
I don't doubt there are, but there are plenty of HRT lines that surpass those. Even so, most of those LRT lines that you talk about are closer to metro-level services, and thus their costs are closer to HRT.
You know, I'm not actually so far away from a capacity concern. Our rush-hour trains are already nearly full to capacity. At peak points, given both the long-term growth expected for the metro, and the existing traffic, I can absolutely see the surge-capacity of HRT being needed over LRT.
True, though even that point seems to be misdirected, in my opinion.
I talk about this below.
Wait, do you mean the 2007 Discussion Paper that was 1) focused on a specific corridor rather than the county at large, and 2) explicitly stated that required further studies would examine other technologies instead of HRT, to include LRT?
That one?
I can guarantee you that if Gwinnett asked MARTA for a transit feasibility study for the whole county, it would get a much more interesting and diversified response. More so if a few priorities were mentioned from the get-go. It would certainly be more than just the heavy-rail line, though.
I mean, yeah it's true, but it ignores how many years worth of effort to change that? I-20 East and GA 400 extensions have been in planning for years now. Then there have been the other studies such as the South Fulton Parkway corridor. Oh, and then there's the Clayton High-Capacity Corridor that was only able to get started in the past few years.
It's not for a lack of trying that MARTA hasn't started / built high-capacity transit further out. It's for a lack of funding.
In the mean time, buses have been in place for much longer. They're not perfect, but that's not at all unique to OTP.
No. This is baseless fear-mongering. Just look at how Clayton was handled, where it was negotiated how its sales tax would be used within Clayton County. Just look at how the City of Atlanta's own tax increase was handled, with legal distinctions as to the use of projects based on their location within the city.
The actual actions of the agency go completely against what you're claiming. Gwinnett, like Clayton, would have plenty of leverage and opportunity to negotiate and set the use of the funds collected within its boarders.
But your base assumptions are patently false, though. They have no actual evidence to support them.
Yeah, sales taxes are regressive and it would be great to have a suite of other funding sources to make it more equitable, but that's not a good reason to not join MARTA.
MARTA's laws can be changed just as easily as taking the legislative action to not only create a brand new agency, but give it powers few in the state have.
In the mean time, at least Gwinnett can start down the path of improving transit.
Well, the county can fix that by increasing property taxes. It doesn't require a brand new transit agency to fix those discrepancies within the county.
In the mean time, Gwinnett would get a lot of transit improvements for their joining, while still having a barrier of 2% to work with even with the MARTA tax.
Fourthwarden,
Please do not do a line by line multi-quote response.
It is very hard to read and follow. I do not have that much time.
By section is acceptable, but learn that groups of sentences have meaning together and are meant to be replied to one by one.
Few quick things...
Most of what I said so far stands true. That is what MARTA presented to the county after the Gwinnett Village did their own study and the county started investigating the topic. The county held the non-binding referenfum and MARTA did that + made actual presentations and meetings in Gwinnett. I can only tell you what they presented. Not what they might do....
It is up to them to say what is possible to some extent. Anything else is an assumption.
The merits of what they do in their own service territory are there for all to see and we will make judgements off of that.
If Concept 3 was made all LRT... Gwinnett can go everywhere by the NE line transfer free. That is what I meant. The difference of the one northeast corridor being HRT vs. LRT only dictates where people can and can't transfer to if other intersecting lines are LRT.
Also, you're comments are not making hard decisions so far. I get that it would be great is everything was HRT, but a far better way to go about this discussion would be take a fixed amount of funds and choose the best way to spend it across the entire region. We can go all HRT, but it will never go as far and we couldn't so as much other stuff. There are reasons other regions are picking and choosing. You have to start from the perspective that funds are not unlimited and choose what is the best way to spend a fixed amount of money.
The discussion regarding retail sales vs. property value is not baseless fear-mongering. It is a reality you have to deal with. Gwinnett is far larger than Clayton and I can't allow them to be a case study example for us. Read my previous comments.
There are real differences and you can't just ignore them.
It isn't fear-mongering, I'm simply pointing out that everyone else is failing to understand or address real, tangible concerns.
Also, the county can not simply fix things by changing tax rates. The problem is there is a difference in the amount of property value across the whole county and the amount of retail expenditures across the whole county.
One can generate more revenue at low levels of tax, than the other. This differs from geographic area to geographic area and it matters. As do some of the spending needs of different areas.
Also, currently the county only has a 1% barrier to work with presently. Only the T-SPLOST tax was initially allowed to be usable beyond a certain rate in the eyes of the state. If we vote for MARTA, that's it. The county can't raise more SPLOST funds beyond the tax programs they have now and they sometimes will do that. The CoA was granted the MOST in addition, because of how in over their heads they were with the water system and EPA fines the city had in the '90s. Other counties do not have that.
Please do not do a line by line multi-quote response.
It is very hard to read and follow. I do not have that much time.
By section is acceptable, but learn that groups of sentences have meaning together and are meant to be replied to one by one.
I do quote by section. I just so happen to use paragraph breaks rather than ambiguous 'groups' most of the time.
Quote:
Most of what I said so far stands true. That is what MARTA presented to the county after the Gwinnett Village did their own study and the county started investigating the topic. The county held the non-binding referenfum and MARTA did that + made actual presentations and meetings in Gwinnett. I can only tell you what they presented. Not what they might do....
So I'm just supposed to take your word for it over the existing evidence and documentation?
Provide some material to support your claims and I'll consider it, otherwise it's just your word going against actually published information and action.
Quote:
It is up to them to say what is possible to some extent. Anything else is an assumption.
True, which is why I turned to the actual documentation and their recent actions.
Quote:
The merits of what they do in their own service territory are there for all to see and we will make judgements off of that.
Those judgements aren't necessarily based in reality, though. Nor do they necessarily take into account the context of that service.
Quote:
If Concept 3 was made all LRT... Gwinnett can go everywhere by the NE line transfer free. That is what I meant. The difference of the one northeast corridor being HRT vs. LRT only dictates where people can and can't transfer to if other intersecting lines are LRT.
Except that this seems to ignore the existing transit system.
Quote:
Also, you're comments are not making hard decisions so far. I get that it would be great is everything was HRT, but a far better way to go about this discussion would be take a fixed amount of funds and choose the best way to spend it across the entire region. We can go all HRT, but it will never go as far and we couldn't so as much other stuff. There are reasons other regions are picking and choosing. You have to start from the perspective that funds are not unlimited and choose what is the best way to spend a fixed amount of money.
I've actually run the numbers, though. I am perfectly aware of how much funding would be available, and how much that could afford. I have written extensively on it here and elsewhere. I can tell you, right now, that you are drastically underplaying what is available for Gwinnett, Cobb, and North Fulton.
Quote:
The discussion regarding retail sales vs. property value is not baseless fear-mongering. It is a reality you have to deal with. Gwinnett is far larger than Clayton and I can't allow them to be a case study example for us. Read my previous comments.
There are real differences and you can't just ignore them.
It isn't fear-mongering, I'm simply pointing out that everyone else is failing to understand or address real, tangible concerns.
Those differences mean that Gwinnett has more leverage for setting its own terms, though. The county would be free to walk away from a deal with MARTA that it didn't like, and part of that deal should absolutely be the usage of funds collected in its boarders.
Just because you don't accept the explanations given to you doesn't mean those concerns have not been addressed.
[/quote]Also, the county can not simply fix things by changing tax rates. The problem is there is a difference in the amount of property value across the whole county and the amount of retail expenditures across the whole county.
One can generate more revenue at low levels of tax, than the other. This differs from geographic area to geographic area and it matters. As do some of the spending needs of different areas.[/quote]
You know what helps taxable property values? Density and transit.
Quote:
Also, currently the county only has a 1% barrier to work with presently. Only the T-SPLOST tax was initially allowed to be usable beyond a certain rate in the eyes of the state. If we vote for MARTA, that's it. The county can't raise more SPLOST funds beyond the tax programs they have now and they sometimes will do that. The CoA was granted the MOST in addition, because of how in over their heads they were with the water system and EPA fines the city had in the '90s. Other counties do not have that.
As of October, Gwinnett only has a 6% sales tax rate. The most recent SPLOST voted on earlier this month is simply replacing one that's already included on that sheet. Unless I'm remembering wrong, the state max allowable is 9%. That gives Gwinnett 3% worth of sales tax to work with. If the limit is only 8%, that still gives Gwinnett 2% worth of wriggle room.
I do quote by section. I just so happen to use paragraph breaks rather than ambiguous 'groups' most of the time.
So I'm just supposed to take your word for it over the existing evidence and documentation?
Provide some material to support your claims and I'll consider it, otherwise it's just your word going against actually published information and action.
True, which is why I turned to the actual documentation and their recent actions.
Those judgements aren't necessarily based in reality, though. Nor do they necessarily take into account the context of that service.
Except that this seems to ignore the existing transit system.
I've actually run the numbers, though. I am perfectly aware of how much funding would be available, and how much that could afford. I have written extensively on it here and elsewhere. I can tell you, right now, that you are drastically underplaying what is available for Gwinnett, Cobb, and North Fulton.
Those differences mean that Gwinnett has more leverage for setting its own terms, though. The county would be free to walk away from a deal with MARTA that it didn't like, and part of that deal should absolutely be the usage of funds collected in its boarders.
Just because you don't accept the explanations given to you doesn't mean those concerns have not been addressed.
Fourthwarden,
I have lived in Gwinnett County for over 3 decades. I have seen what was presented us and what hasn't been, the few times they did. Don't tell me I'm wrong and tell me I have to find documents from many years ago. The burden is on you to prove me wrong at this point. In fact, the very document you gave supported me. It is a single HRT line to Gwinnett Place, just as I claimed. Even more so, it is hard to prove ... using tangible documents... something I am claiming to not exist. Show me the expansive MARTA plan that has been pitched to Gwinnett in the past that was more than just the HRT line to Gwinnett Place. For you to accuse me of being incorrect in this, you should be able to produce it.
You're walking a hairy line in your wandering arguments now.... you're not presenting any evidence or facts yourself and you're arguing semantics with me, instead of the subject on this matter.
As for existing service territory, any idiot can look at the current bus and rail service map and see MARTA's service levels drop off OTP. There is very little to say at this point. You can tell me I'm wrong, but you are converging on an idea few will support. Look at GA400 north, I-20 East and I-75 South... Even Gwinnett is offering the I-85N corridor a comparable level of bus service that far out without the MARTA tax.
You're wrong about local sales tax amounts under state law.
The state takes 4%. It only allows local gov't 3%. It has a one-time exception for MOST in Atlanta due to the emergency over the water system and it allows the T-SPLOST as a regional tax beyond the state and local expense taxes. The state has allowed the existing MARTA service area to use the T-SPLOST tax on their own in the face of the failing T-SPLOST referendum a few years ago.
Gwinnett currently only has 1% available at the moment as I have been saying. Everything else will require a change in state law.
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.
