New lanes on I-285 top-end to cost $11B+. Enough to build 55 miles of MARTA rail. (Atlanta: to buy, groceries)
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.
Drivers should pay their own way. Transit is a more cost effective. So simply roll back the subsidies and let people vote with their wallet. Would you pay $17 each way for the highway over the $2.50 for transit? $30? Either way, most will not.
Just to make sure I'm clear here, you are asking that if drivers had to pay the full dollar cost of driving including all external factors such as this supposed "lost productivity", and factored it against an extremely-subsidized transit fare without any external costs applied, whether those drivers might switch?
Just to make sure I'm clear here, you are asking that if drivers had to pay the full dollar cost of driving including all external factors such as this supposed "lost productivity", and factored it against an extremely-subsidized transit fare without any external costs applied, whether those drivers might switch?
No need to subsidize transit for it to be more cost effective. In fact, it would probably lower costs by getting rid of government inefficient. When transit was privately operated in Atlanta you could pay a dime ($1.50 adjusted for inflation) to ride from Marietta to Stone Mountain.
Though I will acknowledge, that it is likely (and better / more fair) that a modern private transit operator would use zone or distance based fares.
But regardless, we need to scale back the massive tax subsidies propping up cars and let people vote with their wallet if they want a healthier, safer, greener, higher capacity, better for business, better urban design, in addition to more cost effective option.
If you want to keep driving, go right on ahead. Just pay your tolls.
Transit serves really dense cities and downtowns with massive employment. Other than that it mostly serves people who have little choice. And NYC and DC are having real problems maintaining their systems, despite NYC having a legacy system and DC having one paid by the feds.
Transit can serve certain areas well. It can't serve everywhere.
Same is true of cars. But luckily transportation is not all or nothing. Get rid of the massive tax subsidies for cars and let people vote with their wallet which mode they prefer in each instance.
No need to subsidize transit for it to be more cost effective. In fact, it would probably lower costs by getting rid of government inefficient. When transit was privately operated in Atlanta you could pay a dime ($1.50 adjusted for inflation) to ride from Marietta to Stone Mountain.
Though I will acknowledge, that it is likely (and better / more fair) that a modern private transit operator would use zone or distance based fares.
But regardless, we need to scale back the massive tax subsidies propping up cars and let people vote with their wallet if they want a healthier, safer, greener, higher capacity, better for business, better urban design, in addition to more cost effective option.
If you want to keep driving, go right on ahead. Just pay your tolls.
It was a yes or no question. If you want a "level playing field", then use level numbers. Not the full-laden cost of one vs. the massively-subsidized cost of the other. In other words, be at least 10% honest in your debate.
This $1.50 fare you bring up from 100 years ago is irrelevant. The world is a very different place now and absolutely no transit service could be profitable with $1.50 fares. You keep saying "transit doesn't need to be subsidized". If not, why is it so heavily? Why is the vast majority of MARTA's funding from sales tax and not from user fare? Why are other systems in the US losing billions?
What do you think is the actual cost of a MARTA rail trip? And do not post this. If you want to keep riding MARTA, just pay the full cost. Get rid of all the subsidies and see where the costs go.
And also, if you guys keep bringing up the average cost of driving at $7,000-$9,000 a year, while taking transit is at most $1,200 per year, why do you think people aren't choosing the more cost-effective option?
Atlanta needs to do a better job connecting its existing employment centers (Emory/CDC, Cumberland/Galleria, maybe Northlake, maybe Alpharetta) and not focus on creating 50 different town centers.
And look at ideas to provide good service to growing areas close in (East Atlanta and West in the Chattahoochee area, for example).
We do not need expensive rail to go everywhere, connect Edge Cities and suburban business districts and BeltLine rail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsvh
No need to subsidize transit for it to be more cost effective. In fact, it would probably lower costs by getting rid of government inefficient. When transit was privately operated in Atlanta you could pay a dime ($1.50 adjusted for inflation) to ride from Marietta to Stone Mountain.
Though I will acknowledge, that it is likely (and better / more fair) that a modern private transit operator would use zone or distance based fares.
But regardless, we need to scale back the massive tax subsidies propping up cars and let people vote with their wallet if they want a healthier, safer, greener, higher capacity, better for business, better urban design, in addition to more cost effective option.
If you want to keep driving, go right on ahead. Just pay your tolls.
Those streetcar/interurban companies where first used to sell real estate. Once the residential lots were sold, the different streetcar systems began to merge. Those system were then part of Georgia Power, until regulators forced separation. That is when private transit companies began deferred maintenance and ripping out rail, replacing with trolleybuses because those same regulators would not allow the cost of trip to keep up with inflation.
No need to subsidize transit for it to be more cost effective. In fact, it would probably lower costs by getting rid of government inefficient. When transit was privately operated in Atlanta you could pay a dime ($1.50 adjusted for inflation) to ride from Marietta to Stone Mountain.
Though I will acknowledge, that it is likely (and better / more fair) that a modern private transit operator would use zone or distance based fares.
But regardless, we need to scale back the massive tax subsidies propping up cars and let people vote with their wallet if they want a healthier, safer, greener, higher capacity, better for business, better urban design, in addition to more cost effective option.
If you want to keep driving, go right on ahead. Just pay your tolls.
How about we all chip in and pay for you to see a psychiatrist?
We have shown the facts umpteen times proving everything you say is false.
There are plenty of dense cities that have what you want yet you keep clamoring for it in the major US city with the most land and room to grow infinitely.
I want the Midtown infill to stop now. I miss having a open corner block to actually see the sun and a few trees.
I like infill and agree with it for Atlanta's future, but I've already spent 10 years in the canyons of Manhattan and don't want tree-filled Atlanta to become one, hot, treeless heat island which is now keep the city hot even at nighttime.
Gas Taxes are not subsidies, freight and food can't take MARTA and movement of goods is 50% of the traffic.
Even the title of this thread shows you're not playing with a full deck of cards. It was misleading and 100% just wrong and incorrect.
Gas Taxes are not subsidies, freight and food can't take MARTA and movement of goods is 50% of the traffic.
As I've said plenty of times here before, putting the people on MARTA gets traffic out of the way of the goods and people that can't use MARTA. It's not that building transit doesn't also improve movement of freight!
How about we all chip in and pay for you to see a psychiatrist?
We have shown the facts umpteen times proving everything you say is false.
There are plenty of dense cities that have what you want yet you keep clamoring for it in the major US city with the most land and room to grow infinitely.
I want the Midtown infill to stop now. I miss having a open corner block to actually see the sun and a few trees.
I like infill and agree with it for Atlanta's future, but I've already spent 10 years in the canyons of Manhattan and don't want tree-filled Atlanta to become one, hot, treeless heat island which is now keep the city hot even at nighttime.
Gas Taxes are not subsidies, freight and food can't take MARTA and movement of goods is 50% of the traffic.
Even the title of this thread shows you're not playing with a full deck of cards. It was misleading and 100% just wrong and incorrect.
Midtown is literally a 1 sq mile area of a 5000 sq mile metro area....why should Midtown infill stop? You should want a dense, urban center of a major city with lots going on. If you want low density, then move to many of the surrounding suburbs.
Midtown is literally a 1 sq mile area of a 5000 sq mile metro area....why should Midtown infill stop? You should want a dense, urban center of a major city with lots going on. If you want low density, then move to many of the surrounding suburbs.
Midtown includes a lot of single family homes in the Virginia Highlands Morningside and Ansley Park neighborhoods. Do all of those requesting higher density want these low density neighborhoods to be redeveloped as 5 and 6 story apartment buildings? I doubt, very seriously that the current residents want their neighborhoods to be bulldozed and rebuilt with apartments/condos like one would see in a larger city. They enjoy the grass and trees they have on their single family home lots and have no interest in moving to accommodate higher density.
Bigger picture: The birth rate in the U.S. is declining and in the future, unless something changes, there isn't going to be the growth that we've experienced, and thus, there won't be demand for all of the apartments. Sometimes I wonder if they're not overbuilding apartments now. When millennials approach 40, many will reconsider paying $1,500 to $2,000 a month in rent and never developing any equity and look into buying homes. As this occurs, the "luxury apartments" will have to drop their rents because the generation behind them, Generation Z is fewer in numbers. In fact, I have read that the number of students in colleges is expected to drop by 15% in the next few years.
Back to my original point, given these future realities, why should the current neighborhoods of Midtown be redeveloped for higher density? Fifty years from now, people will be glad that there are still tree covered neighborhoods like Ansley Park so close to the center of the city. The tree covered neighborhoods, whether they are in SW Atlanta, Grant Park, VA Highlands or Buckhead are what sets Atlanta apart from many other cities.
Midtown includes a lot of single family homes in the Virginia Highlands Morningside and Ansley Park neighborhoods. Do all of those requesting higher density want these low density neighborhoods to be redeveloped as 5 and 6 story apartment buildings? I doubt, very seriously that the current residents want their neighborhoods to be bulldozed and rebuilt with apartments/condos like one would see in a larger city. They enjoy the grass and trees they have on their single family home lots and have no interest in moving to accommodate higher density.
Bigger picture: The birth rate in the U.S. is declining and in the future, unless something changes, there isn't going to be the growth that we've experienced, and thus, there won't be demand for all of the apartments. Sometimes I wonder if they're not overbuilding apartments now. When millennials approach 40, many will reconsider paying $1,500 to $2,000 a month in rent and never developing any equity and look into buying homes. As this occurs, the "luxury apartments" will have to drop their rents because the generation behind them, Generation Z is fewer in numbers. In fact, I have read that the number of students in colleges is expected to drop by 15% in the next few years.
Back to my original point, given these future realities, why should the current neighborhoods of Midtown be redeveloped for higher density? Fifty years from now, people will be glad that there are still tree covered neighborhoods like Ansley Park so close to the center of the city. The tree covered neighborhoods, whether they are in SW Atlanta, Grant Park, VA Highlands or Buckhead are what sets Atlanta apart from many other cities.
No one is calling for the demolition of Ansley Park, Midtown Garden District, etc...they're calling for the redevelopment of most of the below parking lots/decks (in purple):
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.
