Cobb OKs year-round MARTA service from the AJC
From a practical standpoint, this doesn’t really change anything. Basically, MARTA is taking over the last leg of CCT route 10 that went from the Cumberland Mall CCT hub in Cobb to the Arts Center MARTA station in Atlanta.
As a symbolic gesture, the importance can’t be understated. By inviting MARTA into the county to run a full-time route that transports commuters (not just a part-time route that transports tourists), it says Cobb is shedding its xenophobic past and that it wants to be part of a regional transportation system. That’s a seismic shift from the last 40 years.
The $25B solution to Atlanta’s gridlock? from the Atlanta Business Chronicle
I’d like to get your opinions about this article. A Reason Foundation report proposed that Atlanta traffic congestion could be reduced by making every single freeway lane in Atlanta a toll lane, with regular and premium lanes (”Lexus Lanes” where you could pay even more than the normal toll to avoid heavier traffic). My understanding of the ideas presented is there would be more arterial roads built to accommodate people who don’t want to pay.
Whenever I read anything proposed by the Reason Foundation, my instinct is to dismiss it as a Utopian fantasy. Judging from its official rebuttal to Reason’s report, the Atlanta Regional Commission shares my attitude:
Strategies must be proven through real-world feasibility and supported by legitimate studies, not the guesswork of outside advocacy groups determined to support a limited approach to the region’s complex challenges.
I would be intrigued by this idea if building viable mass transit options were also on the table, but they don’t appear to be. As I understand it now, it looks like a plan to reduce congestion by kicking poor people off the roads. Those arterial roads would be a serious clusterfuck.
UPDATE: Jeez, this was a glaring omission from transportation news. There’s new information about the Atlanta-Lovejoy rail line.
We (including many poor people) already pay for these projects one way or another. It seems like the poorest people aren’t getting on the highway on a daily basis in the first place. I’d say that car insurance, gas, and the cost of car payments are already pretty high barriers to entry in the first place.
As long as they’re not oppressive, I don’t think more tolls would present a significant barrier to anyone who can already afford to drive on the highways every day.
I’m not sure it will be any more of one than the current projections if we do nothing. If anything, these arterial roads would be somewhat clogged, and the toll highways would have a more balanced flow, which does seem like an improvement.
Check out Creative Loafing’s traffic woes story:
Your Traffic woes solved for just $25 billion!
Traffic, Transportation and commutership…
The Atlanta blogosphere is all a-twitter over the Reason Foundation’s $25 million dollar solution (ABC version here, CL opinion here) to the traffic/congestion problem here. Read on: Radical Georgia Moderate Making Chutney In addition, we’ve got news…
Lea Holland should win the blog spam of the month award.
I tried to explain how blog comments work to Lea, but I guess I didn’t get through.
Garrett,
re:
You’re right about the second part.
And you’re right that the poorest probably aren’t driving as it is. But what about people making $25,000/year who are driving but can barely afford it, and who have no alternative transportation mode? Seems like there is a group of people who perhaps aren’t the poorest but still close to the bottom end who would be affected.
I’d like to see an anecdotal survey taken in a city that set something like this up recently enough that drivers could still explain how their habits changed since the tolls were put into place (does one exist?). Take X number of commuters from X number of metro locations who would have to go through one toll to reach their job, and report changes in behavior. Sort by commute distance. Report who had to change jobs, who had to move, who has increased their commute time by taking indirect routes, etc.
I seriously doubt Reason bothered with anything like that. It’s all agenda-driven theory.
Right, but over on Peach Pundit someone was singing Reason’s praises for being an “independent, laissez-faire research group.” The 2nd adjective is the key there, of course - made me think I smelled libertarian agenda!
Har har har…
Did we or did we not already pay for those roads in the form of taxes.
I’m offended that I would then be made to pay to use the roads that I already paid to build.
I’m actually a bit offended that I have to pay to ride MARTA. It seems to me that transit, especially mass transit, is one of those things that is to everyone’s benefit, that should cost the government incredible sums of money and cost the individual citizen next to nothing on a day to day or use by use basis, much like national defense.
I saw a study that showed that with the costs associated w/ a typical mass transit system for turnstiles, fare cards, and all the other associated stuff, they actually don’t turn a profit and basically just break even - so they’d get the same result by just offering it all for free. Which is exactly what they do in some parts of the world, Austria for example.
Can’t find the study now bc I’m at work in the middle of a training session on a really crappy laptop.
I’m not entirely against offering mass transit service for free, but no matter what, nothing is actually “free.”
In the world of roads, the “fare” to use the roads is the cost of the car, gas, insurance, etc. (or, the bicycle, gear, etc.).
All transportation, even walking, is subsidized. The most honest price comes about in associating the price with the distance travelled. Using a pricing structure like that most closely matches the cost of providing the infrastructure. Walking is subsidized, thanks to sidewalks, trails, and other things we all inevitably walk on.
The difference is that the operating cost of walking is extremely low compared to any other mode of transportation. Therefore, any infrastructure development that encourages more walking will give you the biggest bang for the buck — the strongest benefit-cost ratio.
It does make sense to charge tolls on limited access highways. It’s the only tax that can legitimately be called a “usage fee.” (A gas tax is not a usage fee because it’s not tied with any specific corridor.)
For the tolls to be a cost-efficient solution, alternative modes must be made available — and it must be made available in a way that is competitive with the toll road. That means good land use planning is essential for any transportation system to be efficient.
… and by the way, my primary point is in two parts.
One: that there’s nothing wrong with subsidizing any form of transportation.
Two: that there’s nothing unfair about asking those who use the system to pay a portion of the cost of use.