However, contrary to massive advocacy and “education” efforts by several Atlanta-area organizations, we now know traffic congestion management and commuting time reductions are not the real goals of project lists funded by the Transportation Investment Act tax. Instead, the vast majority of spending is dedicated to economic development projects — many of highly dubious quality (read bad transit ideas requiring perpetual taxation), or to large, disjointed roadway projects that are not strategic in scope.
Given this poor selection of projects, the so-called TSPLOST referendum deserves rejection on its face. But there are many more reasons why this tax should be decisively voted down.
Most important among these is a simple thought: For more than 40 years, Atlanta-area politicians have spent billions building roads to create commercial opportunities, often poorly zoned, then spent even more money trying to manage the traffic nightmare they created. Think Barrett Parkway between I-575 and Cobb Parkway, or congestion around Johnson Ferry and Roswell Road. Now, these same people want additional sales tax money from your pocket — on everything you buy — to initiate new development projects primarily for the benefit of certain commercial interests. Traffic congestion mitigation is not their concern. Using your money for risk mitigation of their development projects is.
For the most part, the “Untie Atlanta” crew is the same amalgamation that tied up Atlanta traffic in the first place. Now, they want to use your cash as a new source of funds to do more of the same. We might as well pay the fox to guard the hen house.
They also say a politically appointed, unaccountable oversight board will ensure correct allocation of all TIA tax monies. Translation: Same fox, same hen house.
These are the folks that have failed to embrace traffic management strategies successfully used elsewhere for decades — like express / local lanes, “smart” signals, traffic circles and diverging diamond interchanges, that lattermost being developed by the French in the 1970s! Clearly, innovation is not the strong suit of our departments of transportation. Short-sighted, same-way thinking apparently is.
As evidence, TSPLOST supporters say rebuilding a few interchanges and widening certain roads, combined with 14 mph streetcars or fancy buses carrying a small percentage of Cobb commuters, will amazingly improve county and regional commutes. Believing this is about as wise as saying the TIA tax will “go away” in 10 years.
The same bunch that gave you the beauty of gridlock on Barrett, Chastain, and the East-West “Connector” — which all fail as efficient traffic arteries due largely to excessive use of “dumb” traffic signals for commercial convenience — wants you paying even more for their not-so-sterling, 40-year record of uninspired, ineffective regional transportation planning.
The crew that brought you the tax-drain known as MARTA wants you to contribute additional cash so the money-burning inefficiency of MARTA can continue. That’s not real “smarta,” and more foolish than believing a single, zillion-dollar, multi-modal transit hub (a political darling) will ignite downtown economic rejuvenation. Hub-and-spoke transit systems don’t work. Period.
As for alternatives, don’t bother. Just vote and hand over your money — because during the past 40 years, our transportation planners have spent untold millions on multiple “comprehensive” studies. They apparently know all possible solutions. Therefore, more money given to them now will magically fix everything.
Does anyone really buy this argument?
Summarizing, the people that brought you totally behind-the-curve transportation designs for over 40 years are asking you to pony up $7 billion in additional taxation to continue building projects that don’t solve commuting issues, but instead focus on “economic enhancement” of preferred interests.
Clearly, rewarding government and its cronies with a corporate welfare slush fund is not deserved. Wise, strategic traffic management projects, including advanced transit concepts, are available and must be embraced promptly. Sadly, the track record of regional transportation planning efforts to date — is utterly dismal.
Cobb and Atlanta need real transportation solutions, not development boondoggles masquerading as traffic management improvements. Additional (and likely unending) taxation that perpetuates highly ineffective and incorrect traffic management methods makes no sense whatsoever. Therefore, a “No” vote on the TIA tax is the only responsible choice.
Tom LaBarge is a business analyst based in Kennesaw.
Follow us on Twitter!
Just more evidence you don't know what you are talking about.
Perhaps you should take a reading comprehension class.
Here is what LaBarge said:
"These are the folks that have failed to embrace traffic management strategies successfully used elsewhere for decades — like express / local lanes, “smart” signals, traffic circles and diverging diamond interchanges, that lattermost being developed by the French in the 1970s! Clearly, innovation is not the strong suit of our departments of transportation. Short-sighted, same-way thinking apparently is."
Just so you can understand it, what Mr. LaBarge said was that it has taken our brilliant infrastructure planners and engineers far too long to embrace creative solutions such as diverging diamond interchanges. Their brains are in neutral and is some cases are in reverse.
BTW
Almost every comment you make in this forum is half baked or just completely erroneous.
You are one of those individuals that gleans what YOU want to hear from what someone writes or says as opposed to actually interpreting the way it is meant.
In other words your listening filter is broken!!!!
Reading Comprehension 101:
"Failed to embrace" means they have not or have yet to embrace the technologies listed by Mr. Labarge. Among those technologies listed is diverging diamond interchanges.
A diverging diamond interchange is up and running in the Perimeter area, you can go and drive it.
If a technology is built, you can see it and you can in fact drive on it, would it not stand to reason that at some point, someone embraced the idea?
It's really kind of comical, at this point.
Oh....by the way, just when was that diverging diamond interchange built? Was is just months ago? A-ha. A 40-year old traffic innovation finally arrives in Georgia. Yes, the article writer is correct in his observation that Georgia transp. folks have failed to embrace innovation over the past 40 years.
Wait....NEWS FLASH....3 years ago, Cobb actually built a traffic circle, a concept that has been in use for centuries elsewhere. Yes...failed to embrace seems accurate.
Hey "Truth"? Why is it you feel obligated to defend the ineptitude of Atlanta region transp. types? I bet it is because you are part of this cadre of "unvisionaries".
You are hopeless.
He didn't say that they haven't finally embraced some of the more creative solutions he said it has taken them entirely to long to do so.
His point was that we are putting $8.5 Billion into the hands of people who have not shown any ability or even worse have demonstrated a stubborn reluctance to accept new and apply innovative ideas within a reasonable time frame.
My criticism stands and has further confirmed by your last post.
Broken listening filter!!
Mr. LaBarge wrote "Failed to embrace" that means lack of embracing. The fact that a diverging diamond, no matter when it was constructed, exists. That is not failure, that is execution.
Writers have a responsibility to be responsible to the reader and present facts. People passing themselves off as transit experts have a responsibility to understand the subject.
Someone passing themselves off as both, as Mr. LaBarge does, has double the responsiblity. He should take it more seriously.
Your recalcitrant nature indicates to me that you must be one of these unimaginative, stubborn and lazy transportation "experts" who are embarassed by your failure to embrace, in a timely fashion, viable transportation solutions that have been around for decades.
Heaven forbid that you would consider anything even mildly innovative or cutting edge as a possible solution.
Throwing good money after bad does not make any sense.
Until some realistic creativity and visionary, fiscally responsible problem solving is brought to bear on our regional transportation issues the only logical decision is to vote NO.