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)
 
Old 10-06-2013, 12:28 PM
 
Location: Kirkwood
22,209 posts, read 16,238,370 times
Reputation: 4923

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MattCW View Post
It's still a slowdown and chokepoint. Every now and then my card doesn't read and I have to go to another faregate. Plus, it would physically shorten the walking path from bus to train because you wouldn't need room for the faregates, heck if you really wanted to be crazy, you could design the stations like Five Points platforms, and just have the bus pull up on the side platform, but you can't do that with faregates.
Then the buses would have to stop and enter a barrier that seperates the afre zone from the outside areas?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-07-2013, 11:06 AM
 
2,092 posts, read 2,565,731 times
Reputation: 1090
Neighbor Newspapers - Roswell mulling support for MARTA expansion to north Fulton?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2013, 12:58 PM
 
Location: Kirkwood
22,209 posts, read 16,238,370 times
Reputation: 4923
HRT is the only answer for the corridor. Anything else will be a failure. GDOT should contribute any funding for expansion of 400 to the project. P3 is the best way to go.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2013, 02:43 PM
 
5,440 posts, read 4,929,314 times
Reputation: 3619
Thanks for the link!

From the link you provided:

Quote:
Estimated cost of construction of a heavy rail system for the corridor would be around $1.7 billion, and federal funding would pay for just half, Sidifall said.

She (Roswell Councilwoman Betty Price) said other funding options include MARTA buying land adjacent to the proposed transit corridor and developing it to realize profits; private investment; local governments forming special tax districts for the corridor; funneling some of the state’s allotment of federal funds to the project; and a special local option sales tax of half a cent to a full penny.


Read more: Neighbor Newspapers - Roswell mulling support for MARTA expansion to north Fulton
Buying land adjacent to the proposed transit corridor and developing it to realize profit and utilizing private investment is key.

Real estate revenues and private investment (backed by distance-based fares, of course) and help to heavily subsidize the initial costs of construction and the continuing costs of operations and maintenance when utilized properly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2013, 02:54 PM
 
Location: Kirkwood
22,209 posts, read 16,238,370 times
Reputation: 4923
Quote:
Originally Posted by Born 2 Roll View Post
Thanks for the link!

From the link you provided:



Buying land adjacent to the proposed transit corridor and developing it to realize profit and utilizing private investment is key.

Real estate revenues and private investment (backed by distance-based fares, of course) and help to heavily subsidize the initial costs of construction and the continuing costs of operations and maintenance when utilized properly.
Nowhere in the article did it mention distance-based fares.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2013, 03:47 PM
 
5,440 posts, read 4,929,314 times
Reputation: 3619
Quote:
Originally Posted by cqholt View Post
Nowhere in the article did it mention distance-based fares.
Of course not, which is why I put "(backed by distance-based fares, of course)" in parentheses to emphasize how important it is for a transit entity to collect enough in revenues from all available sources to keep the service financially-viable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2013, 04:01 PM
 
9,933 posts, read 6,935,649 times
Reputation: 3022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Born 2 Roll View Post
Of course not, which is why I put "(backed by distance-based fares, of course)" in parentheses to emphasize how important it is for a transit entity to collect enough in revenues from all available sources to keep the service financially-viable.
Yea, How ridiculous would it be to charge the same amount to get from Midtown to North Ave as it would to get from Alpharetta to the airport?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2013, 04:26 PM
 
5,440 posts, read 4,929,314 times
Reputation: 3619
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsvh View Post
Yea, How ridiculous would it be to charge the same amount to get from Midtown to North Ave as it would to get from Alpharetta to the airport?
Exactly...$2.50 for a one-way ride no matter whether the ride is only 1-mile in length or 22 miles in length makes absolutely no financial sense.

It should be no wonder that a transit agency like MARTA has the financial issues that it does.

That's because the agency charges entirely too much for short-distance rides (something which discourages short-distance use by customers) and charges entirely too little for longer-distance trips (something which helps to cause underfunding of longer-distance service and leads to a significant shortage of service where it is sorely needed.

...Like on the Red Line which only operates between North Springs and Lindbergh after 7pm, and on weekends when trains and buses operate with significantly longer headways, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2013, 01:49 AM
 
Location: atlanta
3,974 posts, read 4,575,907 times
Reputation: 3243
distance-based fares aren't all they're cracked up to be. first of all, the minimum fare in SF is $1.75— which isn't that much lower than ours. but it can get as high as $11 a ride. if you're trying to get cars off the road, charging $11 for a one-way trip is a stupid idea.

second of all, it's an economic opportunity thing. the people who depend on transit are those who don't have the luxury of owning a car and rely on transit to get them to areas with better jobs. distance-based fares are essentially a regressive tax in this sense, since the person who can afford a car can choose to drive while the person who can't gets hit with a huge fare. this pretty much knocks out any economic opportunity transit provides.

lastly, distance-based fares almost always exclude daily/weekly/monthly passes. instead, you load a dollar amount on your card, and every time you use the card, another toll gets taken off. this will discourage increased ridership in situations where people would rather save their money than lose money off of the card to take the train.

in general, it sounds like a nice idea, but it's really not. it pretty much screws over the people who rely on transit the most— those who don't have cars.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2013, 03:01 AM
 
5,440 posts, read 4,929,314 times
Reputation: 3619
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryantm3 View Post
distance-based fares aren't all they're cracked up to be. first of all, the minimum fare in SF is $1.75— which isn't that much lower than ours. but it can get as high as $11 a ride. if you're trying to get cars off the road, charging $11 for a one-way trip is a stupid idea.
The reason and circumstance why BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) charges $11 is for a one-way trip of nearly 50 miles between the Sacramento River Delta area of the East Bay (at the Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station) and the San Francisco International Airport.

In this circumstance, BART functions as a regional heavy rail transit system that almost acts as a commuter rail system because of the one-way distance between the SF Airport and the Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station (roughly about 48 miles to be more precise).

In the case of BART almost functioning like a commuter rail system of sorts, it makes since for BART to charge an $11.00 one-way full fare to ride nearly 50 miles from end of the system in the East Bay region to the other end at a premium location at the SF Airport.

Second, BART absolutely must collect enough revenue to provide the high level of transit service that is needed because road and bridge crossings over San Francisco Bay are extremely-limited (only one bay crossing between San Francisco and Oakland by way of the I-80 Bay Bridge).

BART funds nearly 80% of its operating costs with its farebox revenues, so BART absolutely has to make sure that it collects the proper amount of farebox revenue that is needed to fund a very-necessary service by way of a distance-based/zone-based fare structure to provide the high-frequency, low-headway train service (trains run as often as every 2-3 minutes on some stretches of track during peak hours) that is needed to give commuters an option to a severely-congested road network that is severely-restricted by geography, particularly with regards to bay crossings.

BART's new budget: funding for the future
From the above link:

Quote:
Increased Ridership Helps the Bottom Line

BART’s $672.1 million operating budget is benefiting from ridership that is projected to increase by 3% in FY13 to an average weekday ridership of 376,000 for the year, which would be an all-time high. Fare-paying customers account for 78% of the operating funds in the FY13 budget. The second largest source of operating revenue, dedicated money from sales taxes, is expected to increase by 5%.
There is also the Long Island Railroad which charges $31.00 one-way to ride over 100 miles between Midtown Manhattan and the easternmost tip of Long Island because collecting the proper amount of revenue from the farebox is very-necessary to help operate a mode of transportation that is absolutely vital to the logistical functionality of extremely densely-populated Long Island.

Long Island is an area that is well-served by a very-extensive road network, but even the very-extensive road network is still not enough to fully and adequately serve a very-heavy and very-dense population...something that Metro Atlanta is likely to find out the hard way in coming decades as the population continues to expand while the size of the already-limited road network stays the same.

Transportation systems cost money to operate and the longer the distance of a mode of transportation (transit line or route), the more the system costs to operate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bryantm3 View Post
second of all, it's an economic opportunity thing. the people who depend on transit are those who don't have the luxury of owning a car and rely on transit to get them to areas with better jobs. distance-based fares are essentially a regressive tax in this sense, since the person who can afford a car can choose to drive while the person who can't gets hit with a huge fare. this pretty much knocks out any economic opportunity transit provides.
A distance-based fare structure will not penalize economically-disadvantaged transit customers as the economically-disadvantaged can receive deep fare discounts through heavily-discounted hardship rates and discount vouchers in which they only pay roughly 40% or even less of the cost of a full distance-based fare rate.

But even with a distance-based fare rate, the economically-disadvantaged are still paying less than they would if they were driving and had to pay the costs of gas, insurance, maintenance, taxes and fees.

And even with the one-way fare rate of $11.05 to ride almost 50 miles from the East Bay to the SF Airport, BART still only charges economically-disadvantaged groups a one-way fare rate of $4.10 to ride the same distance, meaning that economically-disadvantaged groups only pay 37% of the full fare rate to ride roughly 50 miles from one end of the system to the other.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bryantm3 View Post
lastly, distance-based fares almost always exclude daily/weekly/monthly passes. instead, you load a dollar amount on your card, and every time you use the card, another toll gets taken off. this will discourage increased ridership in situations where people would rather save their money than lose money off of the card to take the train.
Frequent riders who purchase longer-term passes should receive discounts for being loyal repeat customers of a transit service.

But distance-based fares should also apply to term-passes, but just at a lower rate than if someone was paying to ride without a term-pass and the technology should be setup so that it can be done so easily so as to be routine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bryantm3 View Post
in general, it sounds like a nice idea, but it's really not. it pretty much screws over the people who rely on transit the most— those who don't have cars.
Distance-based fares don't have to screw over anyone and can actually enhance the transit experience if utilized properly as distance-based fares help to collect the proper amount of revenue that is needed to help a transit service remain financially, operationally and logistically viable.

As we are witnessing first hand with the vastly-underfunded transit services in Metro Atlanta, transit cannot remain viable if it does not collect enough in revenues from fares (and lucrative private investment deals and real estate leases).

With the economically-disadvantaged being able to easily have their fares heavily and deeply discounted within a distance-based fare structure, the potential impact of a distance-based fare structure on the economically-disadvantaged is no excuse for not taking in enough farebox revenues to help keep transit functional at an acceptable and/or adequate level.

Paying a few cents or dollars more in fares is not a bad thing for the economically-disadvantaged if it means that they will have much more than just a bare-bones level of transit service (or no transit service at all) to get around without the use of a personal vehicle.

It is much-better for the economically-disadvantaged to have to pay a few cents more in fares and have a much-higher level of transit service than it is for them to pay next-to-nothing in fares and have next-to-nothing in service (or pay NOTHING in fares and get NOTHING in service in the case of a Clayton County).
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:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - 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 - Top