I was at that meeting and I did not come away with the same conclusion as Mr. Lowry. His conclusion is based on his preexisting determination to defeat the Tsplost initiative. No surprise- a closed mind gathers no new ideas.

Actually, Janet, my conclusion is based on a one-on-one conversation that a close friend had with Tom Leslie. This part of the issue wasn't discussed in the public meeting.

So if this was discussed at the meeting , why bring it up here? And you heard it from a friend who had a conversation with Tom Leslie. Kind of like playing "telephone" when you were a child.

I meant wasn't discussed at the meeting, why bring it up here ?

Because it's important to deciding the issue. I was taught early in my career that "if you don't understand something, follow the money".

Why would developers and engineering firms donate $8 million for an ad campaign for a tax issue?

I believe it's because they get a 1000-to-1 return on the money. $8 million in, $8 billion out. It has nothing to do with reducing congestion.

Of course, follow the money and it usually will take you straight to the state capitol and the gold dome. But you bring it up as a fact that was discussed at the meeting which in fact it was not. You are presenting hearsay as fact and that is misleading to the readers of this thread.

What part of "...During one of the informal discussions Tom Leslie told ..." did you not understand?

Okay Mike, then come up with a plan that will work. This area has been putting off the transportation needs of the community for three decades because of these same old, tired arguments. Atlanta is a world class city with a third-class transportation system. We're already beginning to see the economic impacts of that as Charlotte and other communities continue to pick off corporations that once considered moving here. We are choking off our economic development due to traffic congestion. Sure the current proposal won't cure our traffic issues, but at least it's a start in the right direction.

Okay Mike, then come up with a plan that will work. This area has been putting off the transportation needs of the community for three decades because of these same old, tired arguments. Atlanta is a world class city with a third-class transportation system. We're already beginning to see the economic impacts of that as Charlotte and other communities continue to pick off corporations that once considered moving here. We are choking off our economic development due to traffic congestion. Sure the current proposal won't cure our traffic issues, but at least it's a start in the right direction.

I'm sure this is all some vast conspiracy by developers and construction firms to get more work and residents for their in-town projects; not. The fact is that the entire nation is experiencing a new movement to urban centers. Why is that? Because commuting from our outer communities SUCKS. And guess what, more and more jobs will begin to move in town because people don't feel like spending three hours a day commuting back to a home that they can't enjoy due to their absurd commute.

Wait...people CHOOSE to have long commutes? They chose to do so maybe because they want to live in nice areas and put their children in good schools (which white flight in the 50s-70s deprived major urban areas of funding for) And you reference Kyle Wingfield? Hardly an independent source. If you look at ANY report on where Americans are moving....its TO the city. Your attitude is the perfect example of why this area suffers from poor infrastructure "MY tax dollars should not go to subsidize it" and yet YOU benefit from MY tax dollars being spent on 10 lane superhighways that are now parking lots. So let's build more, that sure will help. It's that exact type of selfish, short sighted attitude that caused the issue in the first place. (PS: I work in a high-tech sector and I assure you...where do the majority of young professional, highly educated, talented individuals want to work? It's not Atlanta, it's San Francisco, New York, cities with strong infrastructures. That's why the economy in THOSE cities is booming and Atlanta's stagnates...

Cmon, Mike. Get with the times. Look at what the current generation wants and is moving to. You're never going to have what you want because of "induced demand." Look it up. We're already one of the lowest density metro areas out there and more roads will only increase that suburban density, which of course you don't want. (go ahead, shoot yourself in the foot) Stop with that "I don't want to subsidize transit." I don't want to subsidize your damn roads that I will never drive on, but I have to bite the bullet and accept the fact that I have to get along with you who have chosen to live outside the perimeter.

No project list will ever make anyone happy, but this is pretty close to a 50/50 split for roads and transit. It seems to do a pretty good job of accomplishing just that by pissing off those on the extreme ends of the spectrum. (tea party, sierra club)

Gas isn't getting cheaper. Look at all of the new projects going up in the city, while your suburban houses are worth less than they were in 2000. Buckhead is one of the only submarkets that continues to absorb millions of square feet of new office space even through the worst recession this city has ever experienced. I spent the last few years of grade school in the mind numbing suburbs of Atlanta, and at the end of it all would've been happier (and had a lot more freedom without a car) living in the smaller town I was originally from, being able to bike/walk places with sidewalks without fearing for my life.

Mike-I agree with you wholeheartedly. Always follow the money. I find it difficult to understand why these other guys can't at least get the concept. This deal is like any other 'money grab' the government comes up with. It will benefit certain special interests groups with there hands out for taxpayer dollars. In the end we don't get market based solutions. We get what a bureaucrat and his favorite cronies come up with while they line their pockets. I am not saying that the government should not be involved, but voting an open ended sales tax is not the way to go about it. Too much money and not enough accountability for the results. Georgia should also be lowering taxes, not raising them.

San Francisco has a strong infrastructure?

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh, and Brian, about BART in San Francisco: from their annual report in 2009 (latest I could find): "Financial picture for BART bleaker than expected despite union leadership claims - Sales tax drops 20%, ridership down 10%."

My my my - where are all the "young professional, highly educated, talented individuals" when you need them?

http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2009/news20090618c.aspx

Dear God some of you tea partiers are dense. Not everything the government has involvement with is bad. Ya'll are going to succeed in turning this metro area into a complete backwater if you get your way. Some taxes are a necessity, and transportation infrastructure in this country is designed and built with public funding. This isn't Atlas Shrugged, this is the real world, and Atlanta is seriously becoming a stagnant place.

The founders of this city didn't help it get to where it is today by sitting by and arguing about the taxes collected to build this place. Otherwise we would just be another Birmingham, or worse - Jackson, MS.

Please note the positive, specific alternative recommendations in Mark A's response above. That's the thinking that got us $15 trillion in debt.

Actually Mike, if you'd put aside your political biases for just one moment, you'd do some research and learn that it was actually massive tax cuts (which we could not afford) and two decade long wars that put us 10-trillion dollars in debt. In fact, I'm sure you blame the current administration for that debt. Am I right? Well, that well known liberal newspaper the Wall Street Journal just did a piece showing that spending under this current administration is the slowest in decades: http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor

Dianne, why don't you look at the actual facts: http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor

'Satisfy his feeding frenzy to make the U.S. a third world country"...time to turn off your FOX News and Rush Limbaugh and stop with the hyperbole. It's talk like that which does the country a great disservice.

"According to a 2012 study on mass transit systems, SF had the second most effective one in the nation"

According to BART's own figures, for the 3 most recent fiscal years, they LOST the following amounts:

2009: $318,141,000
2010: $279,253,000
2011: $253,235,000

This is the "second most effective one in the nation"?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

http://www.bart.gov/docs/FY2011_financials.pdf - page 6

Guess what JAH...public transportation isn't perhaps something that's supposed to be profitable...it's a government SERVICE. Like providing water, and the police. Does your local police department make a profit? Or how about your local school, library? HAHAHHAHHAA! I've got an idea...why don't we CHARGE people when they call the police? That way we'd make money off of crime! Would it be nice if public transit was a profit generating business? Sure...it would also be great if school systems were profitable. JAH if you're so opposed to public transit and paying taxes, then don't drive on the roads everyone pays for. And please don't have your house catch on fire, because I don't feel like paying to put out the flames you've created. Oh, and please don't get attacked by a terrorist, I don't feel like paying for the military...that's a HUGE waste of money. Where's the profit in national defense? Perhaps, just maybe...public transportation helps get people to work, thereby creating JOBS, and guess what? When more people have access to employment centers and don't waste valuable time stuck in traffic...guess what happens? The government makes money off of those taxes!

Under your rationale, all mass transit systems should basically just be shut down and we'd wind up like Beijing where people get stuck in massive traffic jams for hours on end. How's that working out for them now?

Oh, and I already know your response..."Well, since I don't need MARTA, then why should I pay for it?" Well, I don't need you getting in a car accident, I don't plan on getting into one, so I think we should get rid of all EMS services.

Simple: these services should be revenue neutral, not profitable. There were never proposed or sold to the taxpayers as a service that would need ongoing subsidies. They were presented as self sustaining.

Please find me any example in which politicians have sold their populace on mass transit by telling them up front that they will be expected to subsidize the service into the infinite future.

Oh - please don't presume to know what I think or might write. You don't know me. If you weren't so hysterical, this might actually be fun.

"Well, that well known liberal newspaper the Wall Street Journal just did a piece showing that spending under this current administration is the slowest in decades: http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor";

Already discredited by the Washington Post: Well, that well known liberal newspaper the Wall Street Journal just did a piece showing that spending under this current administration is the slowest in decades: http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor

Oops, correct link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-facts-about-the-growth-of-spending-under-obama/2012/05/24/gJQAIJh6nU_blog.html

Yet, you still fail to prove the point that somehow Obama is spending money at a rate unusual to any presidency. AND the link you sent actually PROVES the WSJ article's point. Spending as a percent of the economy actually LOWER, look at the figures. In 2009 it was at 25.2 percent and 2013 it will be at 23.3-percent. The author conveniently doesn't really address this point. AND just a few days earlier, he disproves the GOP talking point on Obama's responsibility for the U.S. debt: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-latest-crossroads-gps-attack-on-obama/2012/05/22/gIQAs7HwiU_blog.html

What does this all prove? That somehow blaming Obama for some sort of massive spending spree is a fallacy. Quote from the second article: " In fact, the chart shows that government spending has largely gone flat in the last year."

2008: 20.8 percent

2009: 25.2 percent

2010: 24.1 percent

2011: 24.1 percent

2012: 24.3 percent

2013: 23.3 percent

And BTW; what does ANY of this have to do with mass transit in Atlanta. It's typical you can't win an argument on the issue at hand, so you move on to bashing DC or the political system in general.

HAHAHA you're hilarious...you don't have one.

A good alternative plan? It's a tough question, because the 2 choices we seem to be given involve giving massive amounts of money to failed stewards of taxpayer's money: the GDOT and MARTA. Or put another way, the money goes to the paving contractors (roads) or the government managers (mass transit).

I'm not in favor of either group getting more money. I don't disagree with the concept of mass transit over more roads, but I disagree with building more mass transit in Atlanta without changing development patterns. Atlanta as currently configured is a car town, plain and simple. If we want to pursue extensive mass transit, the pursuit needs to be holistic in the sense that we need a combination of new zoning, new development, and revised bus support for the transit to really make the system work.

Building transit lines in a vacuum without the other support systems in place (zoning,building/bus lines) is a recipe for failure, as demonstrated by 40 years of MARTA.

If the politicians really want mass transit, they need to propose mass transit as a total plan as I've outlined above, not just some rail lines and stations. They need to present the total plan to the voters, and allow the voters to decide on an entirely new approach to transit, which involves all the areas mentioned above. This will mean that voters will have to decide on what kind of housing, what kind of densities, they are willing to support and actually live in and near.

That's my alternative.

Guess what, no plan is ever going to be perfect. The point is it is a step in the right direction. To sit back and nit pick and nay say is easy.

Bottom line is we need both: roads and transit. Atlanta is a car town but transit also works here because of the amount of people. Our rail transit doesn't have to be like New Yorks or any other city. Our rail transit can be for Atlanta! We have some pockets of density, like downtown, midtown, Buckhead, and Cumberland. Then we have some stations that serve entire towns like College Park, Decatur, and East Point. Then we have some commuter stations like Indian Creek and North Point. There is a great mix with.

Cobb doesn't have to have 50,000 people in one square mile for transit to work there. Having a station at Cumberland will me more of an urban station due to its density. A rail line (heavy rail) following Cobb Pkwy can have a more commuter station at Windy Hill Road with possible denser development around the intersection. A station at Southern Polytechnic Univ that is more of a neighborhood style station like Inman Park or Renoyldstown. An underground station in the heart of Marietta like Decatur to still preserve the small town charm. Another commuter station at Town Center for I-575 traffic and a mall park and ride. A final station at Wade Green Road will be just for commuters.

The same for Gwinnett. After Doraville you can have a station for Norcross near Jones Mill Rd. This again is a town station for Norcross. Next a station near I-85 and Jimmy Carter Blvd would be for commuters from Lilburn and Mountain Park with the possibility for denser development. Another similar station at Indian Trail Drive and there is actually already a plan for that area for a big development. A station at Gwinnet Place Mall that would act as a commuter station for Ga 316 traffic and the possibility for denser development. A final station at Sugarloaf Pkwy (Discovery Mills/Gwinnett Centre. That would act again as a commuter station and allow dense development.

Heck we can do Clayton too! After East Point there will be a town station in Hapeville. Then a new station at the new international terminal. Following I-75 a station at Tara Blvd/Upper Riverdale Rd. This would be a commuter station for Tara Blvd and a town station for Riverdale. A commuter station at Southlake Mall for I-75. The train would then turn south on Jonesboro Rd with a final town station in the heart of Jonesboro.

I agree with Erick Erickson: "I believe the Georgia Department of Transportation is an unrepentant cesspool of greed and corruption used by lawmakers and other politicians to buy friends and win influence. Every few years, a new report comes out that GDOT has underfunded projects, unaccounted for demands for money, and is otherwise in disarray. The few times our politicians have sought to clean up the cesspool they have sent in reformers who have been defeated, smeared and tossed out with their reputation in tatters only to be replaced by good old boys who have perpetuated the system."

Do you trust them?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfiuVHxJJhY

Thank you, Ben W..

Everyone should watch the linked video to understand the stakes in this vote. To Brian and Bryan, before we can even begin to consider transit versus roads, we need to have a government in place that we can trust. This truly transcends politcal parties; the GDOT has been mismanaging our tax dollars over years and decades, irrespective of which party is in control of the dome.

Why trust them with more tax money when they continue to mismanage the tax money they currently receive?

Wow, after watching that extremely unbiased, in-depth reporting, you've changed my mind. You're right, because GDOT has major issues, we should put off trying to solve our transportation woes. In fact, we should take things further; because our Congress is highly disfunctional at the moment I suggest we put off passing any legistlation whatsoever. Because I remember the good old days when government worked perfectly. The funny part is; who really wins if the city fails to pass a smart transportation plan? Let's see; oh I know! It's the construction firms that get to keep building poorly thought out roads, and the upkeep that is needed to keep them operable. Oh, and it's the real estate agents and developers who get to keep selling new developments that contribute to sprawl.

Apparently you will stipulate that GDOT is broken, but want to proceed with them in charge of another $8 billion anyway.

It just seems rather foolhardy and naive to hand over $8 billion to an entity with a proven track record of ineptness, perhaps even criminal ineptness. Your desire to ignore that and hand over more money for more of the same is interesting, just not in a good way.

Until the GDOT is held accountable, why should anyone expect their behavior to change? Your solution is to reward their behavior by handing over $8 billion dollars. No.

No. My solution is to hold anyone in government accountable as the GDOT is now being held to account. Your 'solution' is to do nothing; which is no solution. Oh yes, this amazing plan B you keep talking about...when will that come out and be vetted by numerous committees and the voting public? 10, 20 years from now?

I haven't written a word about "Plan B." Please do not put words in my mouth.

GDOT is being held accountable? And what has changed? 4 consecutive years of failing grades, including the most recent year?

My solution is not to do nothing. But even nothing is better than your solution of gifting $8 billion dollars of taxpayer money to the disfunctional GDOT. Until that government unit can demonstrate competence in fulfilling its mission, I have no problem with waiting to implement the tax.

This article is exactly the point about where ATL needs to go: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/27/opinion/sunday/now-coveted-a-walkable-convenient-place.html?_r=2&ref=suburbs

Atlanta is one of the highlighted cities in this graphic: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2012/05/25/sunday-review/0527-web-walkable.html?ref=sunday

Again from the Brookings research: "Different infrastructure needs to be built, including rail transit and paths for walking and biking. Some research has shown that walkable urban infrastructure is substantially cheaper on a usable square foot basis than spread-out drivable suburban infrastructure; the infrastructure is used much more extensively in a small area, resulting in much lower costs per usable square foot. "

"...on a usable square foot basis..."

This is a fine comparison for departments in a retail store, but not exactly valid for comparing suburban vs. urban lifestyles. A more rational basis would be "per citizen user". Atlanta's low density is one of its greatest assets. While there is a respectable percentage of people who want higher-density housing, it is still relatively small. The market should determine what type of housing gets built, not the politicians. The infrastructure spending should benefit all, not just the small handful that want to live that way.

I couldn't agree with you more. The market should determine that; and guess what? Where are all of the hottest real estate markets at the moment? IN TOWN! Why? Because of easy accessibility to top paying jobs. But ask any recruiter for some of the top companies in the area as to what is stunting further economic growth and the answer is TRAFFIC. People who may not want to live in-town and instead a enjoy a suburban life, WOULD be willing to relocate IF the jobs located in town were more accessible. But they often turn down opportunities to move to this area because it's well known that traffic here is HORRIBLE. That's why so many major corporations are backing this, flawed, but still worthwhile plan.

Again, looking at a three year trend for any transportation figure is disingenuous. What occurred during the past three years? The greatest recession in over a century, hard to accurately gauge any real trending numbers there I'd say. So, Mike are you saying then that Home Depot, Cox, Weather Channel, AT&T, etc should just abandon their billion dollar headquarters and move 10-20 miles north? Doesn't make much sense and it isn't going to happen. And Suzannah, why do you think it's 'easy' to drive around in-town? Because people can walk, or take MARTA, or ride their bike to work!

Mike, have you driven on GA400 recently? Has that expansion of lanes helped? How many lanes should we make I-85, or I-75, 10 lanes wide, 20? 30? Any and all transportation study shows you that as soon as you expand a road's capacity it is quickly filled up with traffic. Unless you stop population growth that will always be the case. Look at LA, how many super-highways does LA have? How's the traffic there working out for them? LA has just started to invest in its subway system because people there have realized building more roads does not solve the problem.

Most ppl still commute by car as we are a pretty low density city, and MARTA offers relatively few options (although my son does take it every day to school). I think what I am saying is that the problem is that of the suburban communities who are actively (and financially) removing themselves from Fulton Co. and ATL. Intown we already pay the bulk of the taxes for the city AND it's commuters. I think it is the responsibility of the commuters to bear this (their) burden. If the counties who are commuters pay to link up with MARTA, MARTA will increase ridership enough to expand internally (assuming they administer appropriately).