All this can be yours for the paltry sum of $6.2 Billion.

report 3 likes, 8 dislikes   like  dislike

Great comment Voxpopuli, I enjoyed reading your highly insightful commentary. I agree with your assessment that $6.2 billion, over ten-plus years, is a paltry sum to reduce traffic that would generate annual (this means yearly) cost savings of $2.2 billion to Georgia residents (ROI in less than 3 years!) and $1.1 billion to businesses. Not to mention this development leading to the creation of 15,700 jobs (which lead to tax revenue, not to mention just more people have jobs, which is good!) and $65 million increase in city tax revenue per year (again, great ROI). Those are just a few tidbits I happened to read after perusing the report momentarily. I mean think of all the benefits this would bring to Atlanta, a city born as transportation hub. Heaven's forbid we spend money to improve infrastructure and continue to keep the city competitive in the future economy. I'm glad someone like you, Voxpopuli, had the insight to point out how paltry a $6.2 billion investment over more than decade is when talking about trillions in residual benefits.

report 12 likes, 2 dislikes   like  dislike

This is another study in which the conclusion was assigned to the consultants and they prepared the justification. It is similar to studies that indicate great public benefits from sports stadiums built at taxpayer expense.

Two comments:
1. Look at the route map. It assumes that everyone travelling wants to go to Downtown. In this it is just like MARTA (or rather its original chairman Dick Rich, who wanted and got the major MARTA station beside his store). One reality is that most of the people in metro Atlanta don't go Downtown often, and they would be unlikely to change their patterns. Another reality is that only 8.5% of the metro Atlanta jobs are Downtown, and providing rail access won't increase this percentage at all.
2. In 1945 there were two major rail stations downtown and over 700 trains passing through them per day. The total railroad employment in Atlanta at that time was much less than 15,700.

report 5 likes, 7 dislikes   like  dislike

Jsrowe, the dollar amount is relatively small as government spend goes these days. It's a chunk for private spending - the kind of spending that comes home to roost for the spender(s) if the bet was bad. I kind of look at this deal like I look at Savannah's proposed big dredge, if these projects are so, so good, why aren't the private folks ponying up the money (other than the knowledge that if they hold out, we the people will pay and bear the risk while they collect any profits)?

report 1 like, 1 dislike   like  dislike

@JS
"$6.2 billion investment over more than decade is when talking about trillions in residual benefits."

Trillions in residual benefits? Wow, I had no idea thanks for pointing out such a dramatic ROI.
I don't even think that SF a city who has much more in the way of natural transportation barriers and will be connecting to another major population center in LA, expects that sort of return. Maybe that's why their project is slated to cost $2 BILLION less than the one in the Atlanta proposal.

report 2 likes, 1 dislike   like  dislike

RE: "Another reality is that only 8.5% of the metro Atlanta jobs are Downtown"

The Central Atlanta downtown zone is 4 square miles. Let's just expand that to make it 10 square miles so we include neighboring areas.

Metro Atlanta is 8,300 square miles. My calculations show that this means 8.5% of the jobs in the metro are located in a zone that takes up 0.1% of the land area. Not too shabby. Pretty good, actually.

But even beyond that, a cursory glance at http://www.georgia-navigator.com/ during the morning rush will show that there are a lot of a lot of people who are headed downtown regularly. People going downtown are doing so for various reasons -- education, conventions, attractions, legislative stuff at the Capitol -- jobs are only a part of the picture.

report 9 likes, 1 dislike   like  dislike

Is it even worth talking about passenger rail in a state that has zero desire to build passenger rail?

report 1 like, 1 dislike   like  dislike

We need it but CAP is a bunch of wankers and this study is a hoot. 15,700 jobs? Uh-huh. Not even if you count the construction.

A "vibrant" new neighborhood? My friend Snake cant wait to hang around the entrance, scoping out girls from the country with a bag and a dream.

OK I jest. We've needed this for a long time but we need to get closer to black ink before it happens. Hartsfield's the thing that really matters to Atlanta's vitality, anyway.

report 2 likes, 3 dislikes   like  dislike

@Question Man

The employment figures I cited are from the State, and the 202,400 jobs in the City are for the entire 132 square miles it covers.

So, in comparison with metro Atlanta, the City has 1.6% of the area, 7.6% of the population, and 8.5% of the jobs. The decreasing percentage of population and jobs in the future will not be reversed by this project.

Don't forget, Central Atlanta Progress is all about Downtown. It's purpose is to enhance Downtown at someone else's expense.

report 0 likes, 4 dislikes   like  dislike

i think it is best if CL sticks to its forté -- lust lists, scott henry's fanatsies about working for baby kasim, and regurgitating various press releases (my, my thomas, and you call this reporting?). so, mr. celeste, it appears you have actually brought the standards of this rag down. are you vying for best local version of the national enquirer? if so, you most definitely will win.

report 1 like, 6 dislikes   like  dislike

As much as I'd love to see The Gulch area transformed to something more beautiful and useful, my gut tells me that large-scale urban projects like this one are unrealistic in this age. I'd prefer to see some targeted, smaller-scale ideas -- a more bottom-up approach.

I like some aspects of it, but I think this whole MMPT and Green Line plan is overly ambitious as it stands. There's a lot of potential for good transformation in The Gulch but I doubt this is how its going to happen.

Rather than focus on a mega-project like this, I'd prefer to see CAP encourage something more along the lines of targeted infill that helps to build complete neighborhoods in this south downtown zone.

I'm sensing a desire on the part of many Atlantans to live closer to their jobs and have alternative transportation options. But the plan I see for the MMPT/Green Line doesn't seem to contain the kind of human-scale livability that this area, I think, could really benefit from. In a way, it's too reminiscent of urban-renewal, mega projects of the past that formed a hub/spoke model catering to suburban commuters.

report 1 like, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

@ Darin -

"As much as I'd love to see The Gulch area transformed to something more beautiful and useful, my gut tells me that large-scale urban projects like this one are unrealistic in this age. I'd prefer to see some targeted, smaller-scale ideas -- a more bottom-up approach."

Facts and experience should also tell you the same. Look at Atlantic Station. Look at Lindbergh.

report 1 like, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Just add this to the list of Atlanta's disasters...

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

actually, AA, if you ever leave your basement to visit either atlantic station or lindbergh, you'd see that both are successful, busy, money-making ventures.

please proceed to your next bullshit reason to bitch about the sky falling on atlanta.

report 3 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike