GA 400 Tolls to close in NOV

[kphoger]

Outside a few big cities such as NY, Philly, Chicago, and a very few others, transit is something one HAS to use because of one's economic situation

[ ... ]

Which is why transit, where it works, should be paid for by those who use it

I'm a little confused on your connection, and I hope you can clarify.  Are you suggesting that transit should be paid for by those who use it in NY, Philly, Chicago, and a very few others (i.e., where it works), or are you suggesting that transit should be paid for by those who use it everywhere?  If it's the latter, then it seems a socially unfavorable thing to demand that those who are least able to afford using public transit be the only ones paying for its existence.

(and now, back to the discussion of GA-400.......)

[NE2]

He's a wingnut. He has his, so fuck you.

[cpzilliacus]

I could care less if transit promoters use "it will reduce congestion" as one of their points. New York, San Francisco, London, Paris, Chicago, and many other cities are well known for their mass transit systems. They are also well known for their traffic problems.

Exactly.  There simply is no study that shows more transit does anything to reduce congestion.

It is still incessantly pitched that way.

Quite the opposite, as is seen in the DC area, which has the least expressways per capita and the most transit.  And the worst traffic.

When the Metrorail system was being planned (and "sold," especially to elected officials and their constituents outside of the District of Columbia, since D.C. did not have any elected officials at the time - it was directly (and ineptly) ruled as a puppet of Congress, and especially the U.S. House of Representatives District Committee), the sales pitch was that once the Metro system was complete, there would be no highway traffic congestion in the region to be served by the system. 

Case in point is the poster from 1968, when there was a regionwide vote with Metro bonds on the ballot in the Metro member cities and counties in Maryland and Virginia, plus D.C. (repayment of the bonds has never come from Metro patrons):



Of course, as you correctly mention above, the Washington region has long had terrible traffic congestion, and the notion that transit would be a perfect substitute for planned but never built freeway network survives.

Because, outside a few big cities such as NY, Philly, Chicago, and a very few others, transit is something one HAS to use because of one's economic situation, not something people choose to use.  Because, given the choice, most people would choose the suburban lifestyle, with a single family house, a CAR, etc.

I must disagree.  I have no interest in the transit-oriented or "carfree" lifestyle, but some people (including people I respect and people I regard as my friends) do. 

Which is why transit, where it works, should be paid for by those who use it, or at least those who live where it is used, and not by highway users in the main part of the country who will never use it.  And why people need to stop saying thing like "sprawl" and start using the right words, which are "growth" "freedom" and "prosperity".

I do think that owners of commercial real estate near downtown rail transit stations should have to pay increased property taxes, with those taxes going to the operator of the transit system, since they usually get approval for increased density (and increased profits) due to the presence of transit.

My biggest problem with transit (at least in the United States) is that people who live a transit-dependent lifestyle (either by  choice or economic necessity) are at the mercy of the unionized workforces that run those transit systems (and some of those union locals can properly be described as militant).  If there's a transit strike, those people are out of luck - and more than a few transit unions have struck in recent years in the United States.

[NE2]

What's wrong with this? If you've had enough sitting in traffic, vote for an alternate that you can ride. There's no claim that those who stay on the road are any better off.

blah blah blah unions blah blah blah

[mc78andrew]

"Broke" is a funny word in state government.  You have not experienced "broke" until you have lived in New York.

New York is broke.  Michigan is broke.  California is broke.  All three States have spent and spent and spent into oblivion. 

Georgia is far from broke, trust me.

Actually, NY just balanced their budget last year for the first time in ages.

Figures, just did my efile.  All in effective tax rate of 46 percent( state, federal, FICA, property taxes)  This doesn't include sales or gas taxes etc. 

[SP Cook]

I'm a little confused on your connection, and I hope you can clarify.  Are you suggesting that transit should be paid for by those who use it in NY, Philly, Chicago, and a very few others (i.e., where it works), or are you suggesting that transit should be paid for by those who use it everywhere?  If it's the latter, then it seems a socially unfavorable thing to demand that those who are least able to afford using public transit be the only ones paying for its existence.

Transit, economics proves, is not viable in the pure sense.  Those who use it cannot afford it. 

And transit serves a purpose in a few big urban areas.

So where does that take us?  The current model is that everybody in the whole country subsidizes urban, communal transit.  But on any given day, how much % of transit users, even in a tourist destination like Washington or New York, are tourists.  I think it is safe to say less than 1 or 2 %. 

So why should transit get ANY money from the federal taxpayers?  Put another way, why should a Kansas farmer, east Oregon lumberjack, or, for that matter, a resident of (wisely, IMHO) transit eschewing LA pay taxes to support the bus system in South Philly? 

Of course, they should not.  Transit is a LOCAL service, and, since it must be subsidized, needs subsidized by local taxpayers.  There simply is no federal connection or legitimate federal purpose.

[kphoger]

Why should a Kansas farmer ... pay taxes to support the ______ system in _______? 

Of course, they should not.

Fill in the blanks.

[WashuOtaku]

You can keep your worthless coinage. This is the first discussion of GA 400 toll removal on this forum and, as moderator, I welcome people's opinions on the matter. If you don't have an opinion on it, shove off.

I am sorry you don't appreciate my coinage, considering it's U.S. currency too.  However, I should point out that this thread has now become less of GA 400 and more of alternate modes of transportation.  I anticipated OP's intent from the get-go and tried to shut it down; but I am sure a moderator can easily wrestle the subject back to the highway at hand.  The argument is valid, just wrongly mislabeled and misleading. 



As for GA 400, I am favor of removing the tolls, it was a promise to do so and should have always been a promise kept.  They are a little late, but it's the right decision.  I suspect US 19 may be rerouted onto it (after tolls removed) since it's already along the non-toll freeway section north of the perimeter; Roswell Road is a bit narrow for a five-lane highway, I'm sure the Buckhead would appreciate it.

[Grzrd]

Several local video reports about the upcoming toll plaza demolition:

http://www.11alive.com/news/article/310261/40/First-signs-that-Georgia-400-tolls-are-going-away

http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/23749300/demolition-of-ga-400-toll-plaza-begins-friday

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/state-officials-ga-400-tolls-leaving-soon/nZ6ht/

Tolls will continue to be collected until November 21, and one report suggests that the PeachPass will be present on a lane of GA 400 north of I-285 in the not-too-distant future.

[barcncpt44]

The tolls have now been lifted, eight hours early.  Governor Nathan Deal held a ceremony at 11 am this morning to lift the tolls for good.  http://www.ajc.com/news/news/ga-400-tolls-close-early/nb2ch/