MARTA sees passenger and revenue increase (Atlanta, Dunwoody: sales, transfer, purchaser)

[MattCW]

Originally Posted by jsvh

MARTA needs distance based fares!

It is ridiculous that someone will be able to ride from Lovejoy to Alpharetta for the same price as going from downtown to midtown!

Come on, did you even think before posting that? What could POSSIBLY make you think that the commuter rail will be the same flat fare as the bus and HRT??? MBTA runs all the services and doesn't have a flat fare for commuter rail. NJT runs Buses, LRT, and Commuter Rail and doesn't have a flat fare for CR. SEPTA runs the buses, LRT, HRT AND Commuter Rail doesn't have a flat fare either for its CR.

Originally Posted by jsvh

A price increase is something different. If MARTA does proper distance based fares then that means the cheapest fares will go down (probably to ~$1). MARTA should not harm riders that commute shorter distances to benefit those that commute further. Those in poor areas without a car that have to pay $5 (round trip) to go get a $4 gallon of milk a mile away are having to subsidize the cost of the Consultant taking the train from North Springs to the Airport for the same price.

But then that consultant turns around a pays $2000 for a new TV which helps support that poor person's trip and keeps it from being $5, $6, or $7 (like you want). That same consultant also probably pays much more into MARTA overall than that poor person does so it still balances out.

Originally Posted by jsvh

Price increase is not the same as distance based fares. WMATA is a more expensive and expansive system.

And MARTA should take your willingness to pay that higher WMATA fare in mind. MARTA is cheaper but not as many ride it. Clearly low price is not a big driver to higher ridership.

Any distance based fares for HRT and probably the buses should start at the perimeter, which would basically put our current system under a single farezone which is exactly what we have today. Making North Springs, Sandy Springs and Indian Creek a second fare zone just because they're a few yards outside the perimeter is ludicrous. Anything else just gets complicated and confusing and will turn your choice riders and visitors off of using it. WMATA can get away with it because your choice is either sit for three house then pay $50 to park, or deal with WMATA. People in Atlanta have choices. They may go away in the future, but while they exist, MARTA needs to be trying to attract ridership, not drive it away, literally.

[Born 2 Roll]

Originally Posted by SAAN

Not necessarily. When I tried to go from Regan airport to Pentagon city mall, it was $3.35 for just going 2 stops and $5.35 to go 10+ stops to the end of another line, so it was pretty much $2-3 just to use the train at all during peak periods.
Unless MARTA makes it where it would be under $1 for just going a stop, a flat flare would be better. And we all know how the whole distance based fares argument will work out when it is brought up. The end of the Blue line is Indian Creek in Stn Mtn, HE Holmes in West Atlanta and for the Red and Gold lines, College Park and Doraville. The first cry of outrage will be that minorities have to pay the most to get to their jobs downtown and in the Northern suburbs, since they live the furthest.

The fare structure that the D.C. Metro utilizes seems to be much more of a combination zone-based/distance-based fare structure where the busiest stations on the D.C. Metrorail system charge the highest fares, particularly during peak hours when it can cost as much as $5.75 one-way to ride the D.C. Metrorail to the outer parts of the system from the busiest stations like Foggy Bottom (as opposed to a pure distance-based fare structure which charges so many cents per mile without variations in fares from station to station like in the zone-based fare structure).

Originally Posted by afdinatl

F that! (No disrepect lol) You know I was spending $75 per week in DC to ride the Metro. It cost $5 per day to park and $10 round trip. This was b4 that peak hour bs so it's probably higher now. Please don't bring that to Atlanta. San Fran was worst! I paid over $11 to go from San Francisco airport to Oakland

You may have paid $75 per week to ride the Metrorail in D.C., but just think of how much more someone likely will pay to drive to and from work in Central D.C....If they can even find parking which is at much more of a premium in D.C. than it is in a city like Atlanta where parking is much cheaper and much more abundant but peak-hour freeway gridlock is the most pressing logistical problem.

Distance-based fares are probably coming to Atlanta, as its probably not a matter of if but when.

That's because a perennially cash strapped and cash flow impaired system like MARTA desperately needs the revenues that a distance-based fare system can generate from much lower fares for shorter distance trips and higher fares for longer distance trips.

[waronxmas]

On this distance based fare debate, the consideration shouldn't be what's "fair" but what makes the most economical sense. Since the vast majority of MARTA trips begin and end within the City of Atlanta, it would be cumbersome to enact a zone based fare that more heavily charges suburban commuters given they make up a small percentage of the riders. It would probably do more to drive those riders off of the system completely just as MARTA is finally starting to expand deep in to the burbs.

While BART and WMATA do enact distance based for their systems, it isn't a standard thing. The NYC subway itself (not including the NYC commuter rail network) is larger than both systems combined but has a flat rate. Someone travelling from Far Rockaway to Grand Central station by train (a 20 mile, almost 2 hour trip) will pay the same $2.75 that someone travelling from 33st to Grand Central station (10 block, ~2 minute trip) would.

One thing I that I think would be beneficial would be cheaper monthly and weekly passes. Right now, assuming someone makes two trips a day, it's about 1.60 a trip using a pass. Hopefully the system can find a way to cut that by a third to bring it back to the pre-mid 2000s cuts to make it more affordable for people who use the system every day.

[Born 2 Roll]

Originally Posted by afdinatl

True but still. There are plenty of other ways to get additional revenue besides doing that

One way of generating much additional revenue that has strangely been almost completely overlooked in regards to MARTA and most other major North American systems is from real estate profits from transit authority-owned land and fees from other commercial real estate holdings along transit lines.

Collecting revenue from prime commercial real estate holdings along transit lines is so important because it is a stream of revenue that can subsidize fares, operations, maintenance and future expansions and potential negate the need for a transit agency to have to literally beg for aid from external sources (like severely cash strapped governments at the local, regional, state and federal levels).

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by Born 2 Roll

One way of generating much additional revenue that has strangely been almost completely overlooked in regards to MARTA and most other major North American systems is from real estate profits from transit authority-owned land and fees from other commercial real estate holdings along transit lines.

Collecting revenue from prime commercial real estate holdings along transit lines is so important because it is a stream of revenue that can subsidize fares, operations, maintenance and future expansions and potential negate the need for a transit agency to have to literally beg for aid from external sources (like severely cash strapped governments at the local, regional, state and federal levels).

Would it be appropriate for MARTA to charge State Farm for connecting it its Dunwoody station?

[waronxmas]

Originally Posted by Born 2 Roll

Collecting revenue from prime commercial real estate holdings along transit lines is so important because it is a stream of revenue that can subsidize fares, operations, maintenance and future expansions and potential negate the need for a transit agency to have to literally beg for aid from external sources (like severely cash strapped governments at the local, regional, state and federal levels).

Is there a real world example where this has been successfully implemented?

[JMatl]

Originally Posted by waronxmas

Is there a real world example where this has been successfully implemented?

Yes, Hong Kong and Tokyo. The air rights above stations and the actual real estate developments make a fortune for the rail systems.

[MattCW]

Originally Posted by waronxmas

Is there a real world example where this has been successfully implemented?

SIngapore's MRT is primarily a real estate business. The vast majority of past "profitable" transit systems in this nation's past were real estate companies that ran the transit to make their properties profitable. The Florida East Coast Railroad's parent company is planning to run a higher speed rail service on the FEC in order to make their property holdings more profitable. I'm sure there are others. Amtrak has some real estate holdings, though nowhere near enough to put a dent in its operating subsidy.

[Gulch]

Originally Posted by cqholt

Would it be appropriate for MARTA to charge State Farm for connecting it its Dunwoody station?

Why would they want to build a direct connection when the station is literally right across the street?

[MattCW]

Originally Posted by Gulch

Why would they want to build a direct connection when the station is literally right across the street?

Ease of access for employers and clients. I wish Lenox Mall had a direct connection, across the street isn't always great.