Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-13-2010, 08:30 PM
 
60 posts, read 145,778 times
Reputation: 47

Advertisements

The most liberal (pun intended) ridership numbers for CTRAN were 9000. The article is given here.

Atlanta Progressive News

IF this can be done profitably, it should be done through a profitable enterprise. Clayton County residents should not be involuntarily compelled to subsidize people who can easily move to other areas of the city that offer public transportation.

Or....

They can carshare.

Or....

They can learn to maintain their own vehicles, pay insurance, live responsibly, pursue a career, and be independent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-13-2010, 09:40 PM
 
3,709 posts, read 5,988,983 times
Reputation: 3039
It's funny that people on both sides of this debate don't seem to realize that a private bus company already took over many of the C-Tran lines and is running profitably. At least last time I was at the College Park MARTA station it was still running.

QuickTransit - Home

Everybody seems to think this is some horrible outcome, but I'm not exactly sure why.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2010, 05:20 AM
 
227 posts, read 494,861 times
Reputation: 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by testa50 View Post
It's funny that people on both sides of this debate don't seem to realize that a private bus company already took over many of the C-Tran lines and is running profitably. At least last time I was at the College Park MARTA station it was still running.

QuickTransit - Home

Everybody seems to think this is some horrible outcome, but I'm not exactly sure why.

The quicktransit system is actually a paratransit bus that runs two out of the five old Ctran routes. Plus you have to pay over double(3.50) what Ctran costed with no transfers to MARTA. So it is not exactly a great alternative for riders.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2010, 05:52 AM
 
3,709 posts, read 5,988,983 times
Reputation: 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by society619 View Post
The quicktransit system is actually a paratransit bus that runs two out of the five old Ctran routes. Plus you have to pay over double(3.50) what Ctran costed with no transfers to MARTA. So it is not exactly a great alternative for riders.
My impression was they combined four of the old routes into two routes. And it costs what it costs to run a bus--at least people have the option now. Finally, it's not QuickTransit's fault that MARTA only offers transfers to government-run bus lines.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2010, 06:05 AM
 
227 posts, read 494,861 times
Reputation: 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by testa50 View Post
My impression was they combined four of the old routes into two routes. And it costs what it costs to run a bus--at least people have the option now. Finally, it's not QuickTransit's fault that MARTA only offers transfers to government-run bus lines.
Well you implied that clayton county should be fine with quicktransit when it doesn't really cover much of the county and costs more than Xpress in the area. It is a option if you have no other choice but far from a solution for the County.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2010, 07:23 AM
 
3,128 posts, read 6,535,531 times
Reputation: 1599
Quote:
Originally Posted by macarose View Post
The most liberal (pun intended) ridership numbers for CTRAN were 9000. The article is given here.

Atlanta Progressive News

IF this can be done profitably, it should be done through a profitable enterprise. Clayton County residents should not be involuntarily compelled to subsidize people who can easily move to other areas of the city that offer public transportation.

Or....

They can carshare.

Or....

They can learn to maintain their own vehicles, pay insurance, live responsibly, pursue a career, and be independent.
Holy elitist batman! FYI if dumbass Atlanta had a better transit system I would be using Marta from the Northside. Yes I own my own vehicles, pay insurance, live responsibly, pursue a career and am independent. Gasp and I want to use transit but its pretty illogical due to their ridiculously limited transit.

Not everyone that rides transit is a slave to it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2010, 08:56 AM
 
60 posts, read 145,778 times
Reputation: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by macarose View Post
This is getting blown way out of proportion.

This is a matter of economics and the current trends in the Clayton County area. Neither of which encourage a MARTA transportation system.

Taken from one of the council members who voted against CTRAN funding...

"I am concerned about the people of this county, the 5000 people who use C-Tran," she said. "I'm also concerned about the remaining 270,000 who have to pay for it. The board has made a decision."

Clayton was a semi-rural community that has simply become an enormous suburb with a few projects thrown into the fix. That type of design does not lend itself well to public transit.

If you doubt me, feel free to visit western Atlanta and look at how well MARTA is being utilized there. Suburban counties have to utilize point-to-point forms of transportation to be economically successful. A hub/spoke system such as MARTA and other community transit systems only work when a large portion of the population needs to travel to a specific place.

This is why park & ride's work well in certain metro-Atlanta suburbs. The transit service is only a benefit during very specific times of the day.

The rest of the time such a service would be very lightly used... and it would be highly unprofitable.
Randy, last three paragraphs have you in mind...

If a transit system can be done profitably, then wonderful! A large metropolitan area can stand to have more than one solution to transportation. But it should always be based on profitability and sustainability. CTRAN did not offer a good ROI for Clayton County by any measure which is why it's no longer in existence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2010, 08:59 AM
 
3,128 posts, read 6,535,531 times
Reputation: 1599
Quote:
Originally Posted by macarose View Post
Randy, last three paragraphs have you in mind...

If a transit system can be done profitably, then wonderful! A large metropolitan area can stand to have more than one solution to transportation. But it should always be based on profitability and sustainability. CTRAN did not offer a good ROI for Clayton County by any measure which is why it's no longer in existence.
Sorry we seem to be agreeing. Didn't have my coffee
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2010, 06:43 PM
 
357 posts, read 783,682 times
Reputation: 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by macarose View Post
Randy, last three paragraphs have you in mind...

If a transit system can be done profitably, then wonderful! A large metropolitan area can stand to have more than one solution to transportation. But it should always be based on profitability and sustainability. CTRAN did not offer a good ROI for Clayton County by any measure which is why it's no longer in existence.
Idk if transportation should be based on profitablitly by itself. Transporatation should be lumped together with all of the other services a city provides and then a determination should be decided what should be cut (or expanded). But i can undestand why a lot of times transporation is scurtinized... All of the other services cant be looked at in terms of "profitablity" I mean how do you determine if a police deparment is profitable?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2010, 11:08 PM
 
4,686 posts, read 6,140,925 times
Reputation: 3988
If the MTA in NYC cant even make a profit with state funding and is over crowded and goes almost everywhere you need it to, Marta or Ctran wont be profitable either without state funding and with way less riders. Public transit is a service that isnt made to be profitable, unless you have some really high fares to ride it and if you have to pay $7 round trip, you might as well drive if you own a car.

Everyone in Clayton that is happy Ctran is gone because they had to pay for it and never used it will probably be the 1rst ones to hop on a GRTA Xpress Bus when gas hits $4 again and saying how happy they are they have a alternate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top