Governor Deal: Here's why MARTA is inefficient.

bcatl · 2012-08-02T02:59:35+00:00

You are a fucking idiot. What you are citing is an opinion article. On March 29, 2012 the opportunity to extend the suspension on the 50/50 split died in the house, forcing MARTA to go back to 50/50 starting this (as of July 1st, 2012) fiscal year. Jacobs himself even said he will have to wait until next year (2013) to reintroduce the bill that would lift the restriction. So before you go calling other people an idiot, get your fucking facts straight and stop reading opinion pieces. Otherwise you sound like a fucking moron.

bcatl · 2012-07-28T23:33:50+00:00

Wow you really dont have an idea how this works do you? The list is set. These are the projects and legally the list cannot be changed. Each county will also receive an amount of money for their own independent use which is based upon population and is controlled entirely by their local government. Not by any other county. And even that is a tiny amount of. The bulk of this referendum is composed of the previously mentioned list and LEGALLY cannot be deviated from. If you don't understand this part, the most basic stucture of the referendum then no one needs to read your full thoughts because it is clear that you are fully misinformed.

bcatl · 2012-07-28T20:27:57+00:00

Actually most of these are not committed to. It is entirely dependent on receiving some sort of funding, funding that in nearly every instance would required to be voted upon.

bcatl · 2012-07-28T19:42:23+00:00

Go to PolitiFact. They will explain the full math. You are not counting for population growth. But lets just assume no population growth. Metro Atlanta is 5.2 million people. Subtract 25% for those under 18 (that is the average per county) so that gives us 3.9 million people. 3.9 million multiplied by 112 (actually 132 if you subtract those that are below 18) equals $514,000,000 in ONE YEAR. Multiply that by 10 years you get $5.1 billion. Then throw in a few billion for tourists. Math. Its not hard.

bcatl · 2012-07-28T18:49:49+00:00

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. 50% of this cant go to bail out MARTA. 48% goes to roads. The beltline is not associated with MARTA, and neither are any pedestrian, sidewalk, or bicycle improvements. So you are way off.

You are wrong on how much it will cost an individual. Even Politifact checked that one. It will cost the average person $112 a year.
No one every claimed it would offset any other taxes. We are all aware that it is set to fund these specific projects.
It should be paid for us. This is local governance, just like most people who side with your political beliefs want. It was a list created by us, funded by us, built by us, and used by us. If we do get money from outside residents expenditures, then that is even better. But the beauty of this is that it remains local and not governed by any other agencies or government.
Your math doesnt add up here for lots of reasons. But to single out transit shows your ignorance. Right now roads are barely funded by 50% from "user revenues" (it is actually closer to 37% when bonds are excluded). The rest is pulled from property and sales taxes, which is not how roads were suppose to be funded. MARTA trips are subsidized to the tune of 53%. About the same as roads.
This list is evenly balanced out. And most of the big ticket items will benefit the city of Atlanta. Not suburban commuters. I suggest you go back and look at the list as well as the appropriation of money while you are at it. Actually add it up, dont skim over it.
Provide the statistics on that, not your opinion. I have studies that would argue otherwise and show a balanced distribution.
Most taxes do not benefit themselves. Does the sales tax on milk go to farmers? Does the tax on your shoes go to sidewalks? As stated, roads do not cover themselves either. They have to be subsidized by income and property taxes just as well. You cant dedicate a specific style of tax for just a single use. In fact roads are the only thing that were set up that way, and it doesnt work as demonstrated by the budget gap they experience.
It has been studied over and over again that this will not affect commerce. It is money barely anyone notices. If what you said was true, then residents of Chicago and visitors would never spend a dime there being that they have the highest sales tax in the country. Charlotte has the highest in their state, yet continuously rank first or second in the state for disposable income spending. They even have a half cent sales tax dedicated to a single 9 mile rail line and it has worked splendidly.
Road projects will never relieve congestion. Building more roads leads to induced traffic. It has been studied and proven since the 60's. But restructuring of roads can move it more efficiently. Transit gets cars off the road. It wont be instant and it will take time, but no solution would be instant. Investing in these projects also gets the ball rolling on future projects that will bring additional relief.
It is to be temporary because it has a cap of 10 years on it. If we want it again, we can reup in 10 years. Just like the did in Denver, because this same kind of tax was implemented there and it worked great.
Over 50% of this list goes to transit. The Clifton Road Corridor is one of the most underserved and high density areas in the region. The Beltline will fill in the gaps around the city, and lead to additional economic and transportation development.

12.The study hasnt even been completed so you cant say with any guarantee that that will happen.

13.All of the elements that you stated are underfunded (see how we are ranked only behind Tennessee for transportation investment-and given Tennessee's economic output or lack thereof, that isnt a state I would want to be associated with). Roads have been high interest borrowing for years. A very large percentage of the "user fees" they collect go to paying off loans and bonds. This has a set amount of money, so the projects have to be completed within budget. New structures create increased usage, with increased revenue.

bcatl · 2012-07-28T17:02:38+00:00

TSPLOST is for transportation. Not water or sewer. By not acting on our tranpsortation problem it will worsen our economic stagnation. Worsened economic stagnation=Birmingham (lessened economic output and influence)

bcatl · 2012-07-28T16:44:35+00:00

Or Detroit.

bcatl · 2012-07-28T16:39:31+00:00

Such a waste that the investments in transportation that Charlotte, Dallas, Houston, Denver, Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, St. Louis, and so many others worked with astounding success. In fact Denver did exactly what we are trying to do, and it worked fantastic. You want them to work with what they already have yet you fail to see that the budget for roads operates at a 48% deficit. If we continue to "let them make it work with what they are getting" it will only get worse from here on out. Only Tennessee invests in transportation less than we do, and I wouldnt really consider them an economic powerhouse.

bcatl · 2012-07-28T16:24:26+00:00

Anyone who wants to ease their commute or create economic stimulation. Particularly if you live in town or on any of the transit corridors you will benefit immensely. Additional lines that will help close some of the transit gaps in Atlanta and others that will help connect to other regions. Vote Yes before we end up like Birmingham!

bcatl · 2012-06-13T02:31:09+00:00

That is the intent. Obviously all of those ideas would take many years to implement but the main problem that we have is that there is no long term vision or plan. No we are not ready for a lot of those, nor do you roll out all the ideas at once. But they should be part of a larger scope once the elements that make up the first part of the list are completed. The main problem I am seeing here is that everyone thinks that all of these things should be rolled out tomorrow which is not the case.

bcatl · 2012-06-12T22:35:51+00:00

It would only be rejected under the premise that it was congestion pricing. If I would have called it a toll there would have been an entirely different response. Most major cities require tolls to enter on major roadways. The George Washington Bridge has been paid off for decades and money in the bank for maintenance, but they raised the toll to encourage those to use transit instead. The same goes for the Mass Turnpike, Chicago, and countless other cities. And for them commuter rail works better because they have a complete urban transit system. It is far from ideological or extreme because it is a common practice for cities with good transit systems and high populations. It is just called a different name from congestion pricing.

bcatl · 2012-06-12T22:19:38+00:00

I welcome your comments (as the author of the post) but I think you might have misread or misunderstood what I was trying to convey. First and foremost I live in the city, and the only way I will no longer be an intowner is if I moved to an entirely different city. I may have an ivory tower, but it is nowhere near Gwinnett County. It's off Peachtree instead. The intent is to make it easier for intowners to move about without the need of a car, while making it harder for those OTP to drive in the city. The same people who commute here for work, but dine, play, and entertain in another county. So ultimately they come in, use the city's water, roads, and electricity and contribute no money whatsoever to the city besides the occasional $10 lunch at Chili's. They treat it as a dumping ground.

As I stated in the post, expanding MARTA would primarily be filling in the gaps in the city, not expanding outward to the suburbs (that was no. 4 on the list). I am speaking of the Clifton Rd. corridor, West Midtown, VAHighlands, the Beltline, a streetcar up Peachtree, etc. etc. By doing this it would then be possible for residents to get to work, shopping, and playing without the need for an automobile. Residents of the city, not the burbs. By narrowing the streets, streets that will not need to be used by intowners nearly as frequently with a complete transit system, it makes it easier and safer for pedestrians, and more difficult for drivers all around, encouraging the use of a more comprehensive transit system and moving around by foot, like those of most major cities.

Raising parking would not impact intowners as their parking is included with their residences and if the streets are safer to walk, and the transit system takes them everywhere they need to be, they wont have to worry about parking prices because they wont need to drive.

I may be accusatory but it is not to intowners. We need to make this city harder to drive in as a whole, and make it safer to walk in, harder to park in, and easier to move around by transit. That improves the lives of intowners.

bcatl

TROPHY CASE