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.
Sam, for some reason you think Atlanta today is special and therefore we should not try things that work elsewhere in the world or right here in Atlanta 100 years ago. No point in going down that rabbit hole with you again.
No one is forcing you to do anything. You seriously can't afford $20? How do you define what someone can afford and cannot? Or could it be that driving itself is just not an affordable way for the masses to get around a large city? And maybe even you yourself have stumbled on to the realization that if you are faced with the true costs of driving you very well might elect to take an alternative mode in many situations.
I am fine with that. If you are going to pick one over the other, transit is clearly more deserving of subsidies to promote the public good. They can move people more efficiently, safer, cheaper, and promote a healthier more equitable lifestyle.
Transit should at least be on a dollar-to-dollar subsidy level playing field with cars in the metro.
Transit gets substantially more subsidies per rider. Transit riders typically only pay 25-30% of the operating cost, let alone the capital cost. And until recently, gas taxes did pay for all the costs of roads as well as some transit too.
There is more to it than just rise of cars. Streetcar systems saw their ridership during WW2, people owned cars then.
I suspect the bump during the war was largely due to the rationing of gasoline and rubber. After the war streetcars continued the decline they'd been experiencing in the 1920s and 30s.
I suspect the bump during the war was largely due to the rationing of gasoline and rubber. After the war streetcars continued the decline they'd been experiencing in the 1920s and 30s.
Not to mention the wear and tear from peak ridership during the war and the rationing of steel, wire, etc. that was needed for basic maintenance. That is why it was cheaper to convert to Trolleybuses.
No one is forcing you to do anything. You seriously can't afford $20? How do you define what someone can afford and cannot? Or could it be that driving itself is just not an affordable way for the masses to get around a large city?
Once again your classist social Darwinistic libertarian attitude rears it's head. $20 is a big deal many many people and having to pay it constantly is not sustainable for everyone.
Sam, for some reason you think Atlanta today is special and therefore we should not try things that work elsewhere in the world or right here in Atlanta 100 years ago. No point in going down that rabbit hole with you again.
I note that you did not actually respond to any of the information posted. Is it because you realize that most of your info thus far has been proven wrong and you can't debate it?
Quote:
No one is forcing you to do anything. You seriously can't afford $20? How do you define what someone can afford and cannot? Or could it be that driving itself is just not an affordable way for the masses to get around a large city? And maybe even you yourself have stumbled on to the realization that if you are faced with the true costs of driving you very well might elect to take an alternative mode in many situations.
This is hysterical. Just the complete cognitive dissonance displayed. I'm not sure i've ever seen it this bad.
I have said that this is not about what I can afford. It's about what any individual can afford. And $20 a day across 250 normal working days is an extra $5,000 for someone. That is a massive chunk of change for most people, especially when the median yearly income dwells in the low $30ks. If someone is now faced with $5,000 in extra fees which they can't afford, what choices do they have? They cannot do the same thing they are now. They don't have the money to do that. So, they must make changes. In this case, they are "forced" to change. Not actual physical force. Either they change where they live, where they work, or how they get to work. But, in all cases, they were changes that were required by outside forces.
As far as "how do you define what someone can afford and cannot?"...did you actually just ask that? I mean, we have this thing called "math". Using "math", we can take two or more numbers, and compare them to get a result. John has $10 available, but must pay $15 to get to work. Using "math", John can determine that getting to work will cost $5 more than he has. With this futuristic information, John now knows that he cannot get to work, because he cannot afford it. John knows what he can afford.
Quote:
I am fine with that. If you are going to pick one over the other, transit is clearly more deserving of subsidies to promote the public good. They can move people more efficiently, safer, cheaper, and promote a healthier more equitable lifestyle.
Transit already gets more subsidies. This has been shown to you over and over. User fees barely pay a fraction of its costs.
Man, congratulations on the use of buzzwords. Now, care to comment on my link above apparently showing that GDOT appears to be almost 90% funded by fuel taxes? I that is indeed true (and I find it hard to believe), what does that say about subsidizing them?
Quote:
Transit should at least be on a dollar-to-dollar subsidy level playing field with cars in the metro.
Even though one will never cover even a fraction of that metro, nor serve a fraction of the people? That is preposterous.
Note: GDOT's entire budget is just a little more than twice MARTA's operating expenses alone. GDOT covers the entire state, which is 7 times the size of the entire Atlanta Metro. MARTA covers pretty much some of ITP. So, if you cut GDOT's budget by 5 (to account of the metro having more roads and highways), then their budget would be $398 million for the metro. That's 40% of MARTA's costs, which are minimally covered by users.
If MARTA's operating expenses alone are half of the entire state's transportation department's expenses, while moving single digit percentages of the metro population, can you really claim that it's cheaper??
Transit gets substantially more subsidies per rider. Transit riders typically only pay 25-30% of the operating cost, let alone the capital cost. And until recently, gas taxes did pay for all the costs of roads as well as some transit too.
MARTA's farebox recovery ratio is 30%+ similar to the share of roads gas taxes cover.
But I am not asking for a per user level field for transit. It needs to be level on a total-dollar basis. A key factor with MARTA and its issue is it needs much more of a private compensate. There are many transit systems out there that have 100%+ fare box recovery ratio / turn a profit and you can go and buy their stock.
Give transit a dollar-per-dollar level playing field and it will beat cars in large cities hands down. The car-only folks know it too. The idea of them having to pay $20 out of pocket instead of society picking up the tab is causing them to have panic attacks.
Once again your classist social Darwinistic libertarian attitude rears it's head. $20 is a big deal many many people and having to pay it constantly is not sustainable for everyone.
And $20 is a cheap expense for cars. How do you expect the car-dependent poor to deal with $500+ maintenance bills that come out of no where?
Cars are just too darn expensive to be designing our cities around car-dependency. It really is hard on the poor.
And people like yourself are unable to offer any better solutions besides forcing car expenses down the throats of the poor instead of shifting subsidies & polices away from car-dependency and towards more equitable and affordable transportation alternatives such as walking, biking, and transit.
I have said that this is not about what I can afford. It's about what any individual can afford. And $20 a day across 250 normal working days is an extra $5,000 for someone. That is a massive chunk of change for most people, especially when the median yearly income dwells in the low $30ks. If someone is now faced with $5,000 in extra fees which they can't afford, what choices do they have? They cannot do the same thing they are now. They don't have the money to do that. So, they must make changes. In this case, they are "forced" to change. Not actual physical force. Either they change where they live, where they work, or how they get to work. But, in all cases, they were changes that were required by outside forces.
As far as "how do you define what someone can afford and cannot?"...did you actually just ask that? I mean, we have this thing called "math". Using "math", we can take two or more numbers, and compare them to get a result. John has $10 available, but must pay $15 to get to work. Using "math", John can determine that getting to work will cost $5 more than he has. With this futuristic information, John now knows that he cannot get to work, because he cannot afford it. John knows what he can afford.
Even the poorest in this country can put together $20 if they want to. But here it the thing, that $20 should not be wasted on parking / car expenses. Things like food, housing, and more affordable transportation options should come first. We should mirror our government budgets the same way.
Just because that $20 parking space becomes "free" due to public subsidies / policies does not mean it is really free. The costs are just hidden in taxes and other transactions. And that is money that could be going to other subsidies such as food, housing or transit.
If John has $15 he should not be spending any of that towards a car or parking. In fact he should sell his car and use the money for food, housing, and bus fare to work. Even if we subsidized parking to make it free, John would still not be able to afford to keep up a car. No, John is much better off if we spend finite tax dollars subsidizing things like food, housing, and transit for John instead of subsidizing parking for the people that have more than $15 and can afford a car.
John knows what he can afford and it is not a car if he only has $15.
Of course if John really wants to keep his car and wants to park in that space I am sure he can find someone to borrow the extra $5 to fulfill his dreams of parking in that $20 space. John has a choice, just like you have a choice. And spending limited money (either personal or government) on cars & parking is really not a smart choice. There are simply more affordable options and more important things that should come first in our budgets.
Even the poorest in this county can put together $20 if they want to. But here it the thing, that $20 should not be wasted on parking / car expenses. Things like food, housing, and more affordable transportation options should come first. We should mirror out government budgets the same way.
Have to agree with that, jsvh. I have been working off site lately and the parking runs me nearly $20 a day. That is just ridiculous.
MARTA's farebox recovery ratio is 30%+ similar to the share of roads gas taxes cover.
This is not borne out even in MARTA's own publications. I will re-quote the following, and you are welcome to debate the numbers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1
Your own link showed that road subsides are far lower than transit subsides. It appears that in 2013, user fees and taxes pay for more than half of GDOT's funding, according to this 2013 fact sheet. Now, I just pulled up the budget request for GDOT for 2018 and 2019. Something strange here...For FY2018, they're saying the total funding is $1.99 Billion. Of that, it looks like Motor Fuel accounts for about $1.8 Billion (or about 90%) of that funding, both operating and capital. There must be something missing here...what am I missing? Surely GDOT is not funded 90% by fuel tax.
So, just to make sure I have this straight, the cost of a MARTA rail ride is about $3.30.The cost of an unlinked bus trip is $4.16. The cost of a MARTA ticket is $2.50. That's 75% for rail and 60% for bus. But, according to this 2015 document, MARTA's operating expenses were $945 Million (over a billion before cost allocation), and passenger revenue was $137 Million, or 14.6%. Note, that does not include capital expenses, just operating. So, if a ticket that supposedly covers 60-75% the cost of a single ride only brings in 14.6% of expenses, people must be making a LOT of transfers. Judging by this, a transit ticket should cost $17.12. Or, maybe $16 if you count in other non-subsidy revenue.
So, how are MARTA's firebox recovery more than 30%, when their own information claims around 15% (when ridership was higher)? Which part did I get wrong?
And your own link earlier showed much more than 30% of roads funded by gas tax and user fees.
And GDOT's information claims 90% user tax revenue. I don't believe it either, but that is what their info says.
Quote:
But I am not asking for a per user level field for transit. It needs to be level on a total-dollar basis.
So, you're generally looking for a 9:1 dollar-per-user subsidy for transit vs. roads?
Quote:
A key factor with MARTA and its issue is it needs much more of a private compensate. There are many transit systems out there that have 100%+ fare box recovery ratio / turn a profit and you can go and buy their stock.
Certainly none in the US...from CityLab, although a few years old...
Almost all are in Asia, which is not surprising since labor and parts are much cheaper in Asia, and population densities are very high. The most profitable transit system in the world is in Hong Kong...an area 3/4 the size of Fulton County, and with 8 times the density. No brainer.
Quote:
Give transit a dollar-per-dollar level playing field and it will beat cars in large cities hands down. The car-only folks know it too. The idea of them having to pay $20 out of pocket instead of society picking up the tab is causing them to have panic attacks.
Society is picking up your tab, moreso than mine. We pay a larger percentage in user fees and taxes. You can do the same. And, as I explained earlier, even if half of GDOT's total budget was applied only to the Atlanta Metro, it would still be less than MARTA's operating-only budget. Something tells me that MARTA may be getting close to a dollar-per-dollar subsidy.
And anyway, what is there to "beat"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsvh
Just because that $20 parking space becomes "free" due to public subsidies / policies does not mean it is really free. The costs are just hidden in taxes and other transactions. And that is money that could be going to other subsidies such as food, housing or transit.
Your own link earlier claimed that parking was actually a revenue generator, not a cost. Do you dispute your own link?? Are you saying your own link was wrong?
Quote:
If John has $15 he should not be spending any of that towards a car or parking. In fact he should sell his car and use the money for food, housing, and bus fare to work. Even if we subsidized parking to make it free, John would still not be able to afford to keep up a car. No, John is much better off if we spend finite tax dollars subsidizing things like food, housing, and transit for John instead of subsidizing parking for the people that have more than $15 and can afford a car.
So, you're saying that John is essentially forced to sell his car and change his life due to the new costs?
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.
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.
