What would be some Realistic MARTA expansion dates? (Atlanta, Alpharetta: living in, buses)

[MikeHonchoATL]

Originally Posted by cqholt

Fixed it for you.
In the long run of ops and maintenance, rail will be cheaper.

Don't be an idiot.

The TOTAL cost of rail is massive compared to buses, even if O&M costs for buses is higher.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by MikeHonchoATL

And perhaps, if you make bus transit reliable and faster, more people would ride it. The idea that many ony here espouse that buses have a stigma that can't be overcome is pure stupidity. If they provide a fast transit option for people, they'll ride it. If it takes significantly longer than driving, people won't. THAT is the stigma of buses. They are slow and unreliable. Fix that and you would be on to something. You could implement high quality bus service for a fraction of the cost of vanity projects like the $100 million 1.3 mile streetcar to nowhere.

Buses don't even need to be terribly fast. So long as they run frequently and don't keep people standing around in limbo, they are fine in regular traffic.

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by MikeHonchoATL

Don't be an idiot.

The TOTAL cost of rail is massive compared to buses, even if O&M costs for buses is higher.

Surely you're including the cost of the roads into your total cost for buses? To do otherwise would be dishonest.

[MikeHonchoATL]

Originally Posted by fourthwarden

Surely you're including the cost of the roads into your total cost for buses? To do otherwise would be dishonest.

That cost is already a sunk cost. It is going to exist whether buses run on them or not.

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Buses don't even need to be terribly fast. So long as they run frequently and don't keep people standing around in limbo, they are fine in regular traffic.

Then why does 110 not have higher ridership?

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by MikeHonchoATL

That cost is already a sunk cost. It is going to exist whether buses run on them or not.

Why should it be consider that way though? After all, we're talking about moving people in a given space, and the costs associated with doing so. Fixed-guideway transit ways are capable of moving many, many more people in a given space than roads. All those additional people then have compounding external benefits of more taxes gathered per unit area of the city, and per dollar spent on supporting infrastructure.

So, why shouldn't the default be transit ways and pedestrian ways? They do a better job of moving more people, after all.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by primaltech

Yeah, I do still think it would be pretty great, for MARTA to take $1 Billion of the 1/2 penny expansion tax, and pour that completely into new buses (and drivers), other bus improvements, and new bus infrastructure and related (park & ride centers, and new shelters and signs and whatever.)

We could do something for far less cost that would quickly and dramatically improve the lives of MARTA's core ridership.

Here's some back of the envelope figuring.

Let’s say we purchase 400 sleek new top of the line CNG buses for $500,000 each. That would be a $200 million capital expenditure, or about 7% of the new money being generated by the additional MARTA tax.

That leaves $2.8 billion (93%) of the new tax for messing around with streetcars and the like.

But, wait, the critics say, don’t these new buses have to be operated?

Well, let’s look at those costs. Say it costs $100 per hour to operate a bus. If it’s running 12 hours a day, these 400 new buses will have an annual operating tab of $175,000,000.

On the other hand they are also generating fares. If we simply hold steady at 225,000 riders per day, we’re bringing in $164,000,000 per year in additional revenues.

So yes, there is a shortfall but it’s in the range of $10 million, or .04% of the new tax money.

For perspective, the overruns alone for the 2 mile streetcar system were $30 million more than the initial projections! And let’s not pretend that streetcars and light rail don’t also have major operating costs.

People can pick at these figures and move this or that element up or down, but we’re talking in broad terms here. We can make a HUGE difference with buses for a whole lot less money, and we can do it now.

[Sualpine]

Buses are not real MARTA. Don't cheap out against rail.

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by arjay57

We could do something for far less cost that would quickly and dramatically improve the lives of MARTA's core ridership.

Here's some back of the envelope figuring...

Here's some more back of the Napkin Math for you:



Assuming all new vehicles would be continuously circulated, and without taking into account things like pensions, additional standby-fleets, operating expenses other than salaries, additional costs of right of way, additional costs of storage facilities, mid-life overhauls, etc., over their 30-year life-time, streetcars are cheaper per unit capacity added to a system.

When considering those other things, to create a counter argument, one must remember that:

• So many more buses means larger area devoted to storage
• So many more drivers require much more set aside in pensions
• Buses generally require more maintenance meaning higher maintainer costs
• CNG is a more expensive fuel source than electricity
• Buses aren't a concentrating force for development and the tax revenue that comes with it

[cqholt]

It appears the bus is becoming cool in DC because of MetroRail's failures.

The glowing reviews are a stark departure from long-held stereotypes about buses: capricious schedules, undependable service, plodding speeds, grubby interiors and a general “sketchy” aesthetic.

Let's hope the COA can make MARTA's buses cool too.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...=.c38fec1a297c