I think this infograph proves Atlanta needs to step up... (College Park: real estate, leasing)

[Born 2 Roll]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Amidst all this hoopla about the "need" for rail, is anyone taking into account the fact that maybe that simply isn't what most Atlantans want?

When people in Atlanta decide they want commuter rail, HSR, light rail and streetcars, then that is when they will be built. When Georgians decide they want to spend more money on MARTA, that is when it will happen.

In the meantime, haranguing folks about what they "should" want is not only ineffective but counterproductive.

...That's an excellent point.

Although, going back to last year's T-SPLOST debacle, one of the reasons people in the 10-county Atlanta region outside of the City of Atlanta often cited why they voted so heavily against the T-SPLOST was because the plan had no serious provisions to fund a long-overdue upgrade and expansion of the region's severely-lacking passenger rail transit network.

...An upgrade and expansion namely in the form of a regional commuter rail network and a rail transit connection between severely-congested Cobb and Gwinnett counties with the major regional employment center in the Perimeter Center/Dunwoody area by way of a high-capacity rail transit line across the Top End of the I-285 Perimeter.

An overwhelming amount of people (both ITP and OTP) also voted against the T-SPLOST because they thought that it funded too much road construction outside of I-285, road construction that they thought would only help to spread more automobile-oriented sprawl which they thought would only serve to make traffic congestion worse.

With so many people voting against the T-SPLOST in heavy numbers because of their opposition to the lack of a regional passenger rail plan and the provisions for new road construction that the T-SPLOST would have funded, and after 2 decades of increasingly-severe traffic congestion and transit options that have either failed to keep pace with the fast-growing population and the resulting increased traffic congestion or have either shrunken in many cases, it appears that most Metro Atlantans are indeed ready to see an expanded passenger rail transit network funded, if not with tax increases then most certainly with user fees and private investment that will give them the expansion of the region's lacking transit network that they so clearly do desire without the tax increases that they so clearly do not desire.

Originally Posted by kferq

The majority of Atlantans (that is those who live inside the City of Atlanta) support the streetcar and rail expansion. Haranging folks about what they should want (no expansion of rail) on message boards is ineffective and counter productive. The State legislature controls MARTA, so we do not have self-determination on this issue.

...Those are very good points also.

You make a very good point that the Georgia state legislature controls MARTA, particularly with the provision that requires MARTA to spend 50% of its sales tax revenues on capital expenditures.

But even with that provision, MARTA still has not been able to afford its capital expenditures as last year's ill-fated would have given MARTA $600 million that would have only funded a portion of the backlog it has in capital needs.

Throughout the transit agency's existence, MARTA's problem has not been with the state's requirement that it spend 50% of its sales tax revenues on capital expenditures so much as it has been that MARTA itself has not collected anywhere near enough in revenues at the farebox while keeping a high-level of administrative overhead with too many management positions.

Had MARTA not intentionally depressed its fare structure by collecting too little in fare revenues with a depressed flat-rate fare structure while basically demanding that the State of Georgia fund most of its operations (a state government that already does not and has never funded the state's road network adequately) and had less administrative overhead, MARTA would not be running long-term deficits of $3 billion.

The state requirement that MARTA set aside 50% of its sales tax revenues for capital expenditures would not even be (and really is not) an issue if MARTA had kept its administrative overhead costs under control and had been collecting an adequate amount of farebox revenues through a distance-based fare structure or combination distance-based/zone-based fare structure like its peers at Northern California's BART have done in funding 78% of their operating costs with a combination distance-based/zone-based fare structure that charges as much as $11.05 one-way ($22.10 round-trip) for a nearly 50-mile ride between the Sacramento River Delta area of the East Bay region and San Francisco International Airport.

The 78% of operating costs that BART covers with its combination distance-based/zone-based fare structure is substantially higher than the roughly 30% of operating costs that MARTA covers with its flat-rate fare structure.

That combination distance-based/zone-based fare rate of $11.05 one-way between the San Francisco International Airport and the Sacramento River Delta area of the East Bay region is also substantially higher and funds an infinitely much-higher level and quality of transit service than the flat fare rate of $2.50 one-way that MARTA charges no matter the distance, location or time of day.

For example, a one-way trip on MARTA to ride one stop between College Park Station and the Atlanta Airport Station, a distance of less than a mile, costs the same as a one-way trip to ride 18 stops on MARTA between North Springs and the Atlanta Airport, a distance of about 25 miles.

The higher combination distance-based/zone-based fare structure that BART uses to fund nearly 80% of its operating costs is also helping BART to fund a $484 million people mover between the Coliseum BART Station and the Oakland Airport and a $6.1 billion, 25-mile-long expansion of the BART system between Fremont and Santa Clara.

By contrast, the flat-rate fare structure that only funds roughly 30% of MARTA's operating costs (a range of between 27%-33%) has helped cause MARTA to initiate increasingly severe service cuts that have caused the MARTA to experience an increasingly steep decline in ridership and hemorrhage revenues at an even higher rate than the troubled agency was hemorrhaging before.

Despite the state-mandated "50-50 rule" that required MARTA to put aside 50% of its sales tax revenues for capital expenditures, MARTA has always had control of its destiny from the beginning through its administrative costs and its farebox revenue collections, it's just that the agency never chose to exercise that control over its destiny that it once had.

[Mutiny77]

Originally Posted by #1MARTAFan

And that would be a good goal to aim for.



If they were self sufficient and not running up massive debts, I think the state and other local counties would be more willing to join and/or contribute to expand the system. Throwing more money at a problem (expanding the system) would only lead to more and more deficits. I certainly don't want my tax money going to fund MARTA's mismanagement.

Uhhh, no. Let's be real: the resistance against MARTA from the state and certain surrounding counties has historically and currently revolves primarily around race.

[#1MARTAFan]

Originally Posted by Mutiny77

Uhhh, no. Let's be real: the resistance against MARTA from the state and certain surrounding counties has historically and currently revolves primarily around race.

When presented with facts that can't be logically countered, play the race card.

Well done.

[Born 2 Roll]

Originally Posted by #1MARTAFan

How does Alpharetta keep attracting new IT companies without a streetcar?

This doesn't fit the pro-transit narrative.

...That is a good point and an excellent question.

Alpharetta keeps attracting new IT companies without a streetcar just as the Atlanta region keeps attracting new businesses basically on the expectation from those companies that the Atlanta region and the State of Georgia are going to do something substantial about their transportation issues that are both very real and somewhat perceived.

Originally Posted by #1MARTAFan

Ignore this success story... along with the Research Triangle... and Houston... and Dallas... and Austin... because we need the choo choo!

...That's also an excellent point, but unlike the Atlanta region and the State of Georgia, all 4 of the metro regions you named, with the help of their respective state governments, have recently made very-substantial investments in transportation, both in the realms of transit and roads.

That's as opposed to the Atlanta region and the State of Georgia which have made increasingly fewer new and impactful investments in transportation over the last two decades.

Some major transportation investments being made in the Research Triangle area of North Carolina:
Capital Area Friends of Transit (transit)
NCDOT: Triangle Expressway (roads)

Some major transportation investments being made in the Houston area:
System Map (transit)
https://www.hctra.org/tollroads_map/ (roads)

Some major Dallas area transportation investments in a light rail-anchored transit system:
DART.org - DART Current and Future Services Map

Dallas-Fort Worth regional commuter rail transit line (the Trinity Railway Express/TRE):
Home - Trinity Railway Express (TRE)

Dallas-Denton regional commuter rail transit line (the A-train):
A-train| DCTA
A-train-Routes & Schedules| DCTA

Some major Dallas area transportation investments in roads:
https://www.ntta.org/roadsprojects/e...s/default.aspx
LBJ Express Project - TEXpress Lanes provide commuters choices!

Some major transportation investments in the Austin area:
http://www.capmetro.org/metrorail/ (transit)
http://www.texastollways.com/austint...nglish/map.htm (roads)
http://www.texastollways.com/austintollroads/ (roads)

[Gulch]

Originally Posted by Mutiny77

Uhhh, no. Let's be real: the resistance against MARTA from the state and certain surrounding counties has historically and currently revolves primarily around race.

Historically yes (though not the only reason), currently, not so much. This isn't 1965.

Originally Posted by #1MARTAFan

When presented with facts that can't be logically countered, play the race card.

Well done.

Your assertion that MARTA should be self-sufficient (while nice in theory) is BS given that not one transit agency in America is even close to that level, and that GDOT's roads would never be subjected to that same standard.

[Mutiny77]

Originally Posted by #1MARTAFan

When presented with facts that can't be logically countered, play the race card.

Well done.

Uhhh, no. The historic evidence is abundantly clear when it comes to this, and let's not act as though there still isn't a racial stigma associated with MARTA that many suburbanites buy into. You'd have to have your head in the sand to not acknowledge that.

[#1MARTAFan]

Originally Posted by Gulch

Your assertion that MARTA should be self-sufficient (while nice in theory) is BS given that not one transit agency in America is even close to that level, and that GDOT's roads would never be subjected to that same standard.

Is that realistic? No. However, building up $500+ million in deferred maintenance through **** poor management is inexcusable. If MARTA operated more efficiently and made use of it's assets, it could operate much closer to a break even point that would make it more appealing to surrounding counties. Operating in the 35% farebox recovery rate range is inexcusable. Every $2.50 fair must be supplemented by $5 in tax payer money. That is absurd. Get leaner. Increase revenue.

For the record, and I have said this multiple times, I am in favor of raising the state gas tax substantially to pay for increased contribution to road construction and maintenance.

[#1MARTAFan]

Originally Posted by Mutiny77

But Race race race race race race race race.

I'll gladly discuss facts and logic with you, but you aren't bringing anything to the table.

[Gulch]

Originally Posted by #1MARTAFan

Is that realistic? No. However, building up $500+ million in deferred maintenance through **** poor management is inexcusable. If MARTA operated more efficiently and made use of it's assets, it could operate much closer to a break even point that would make it more appealing to surrounding counties. Operating in the 35% farebox recovery rate range is inexcusable. Every $2.50 fair must be supplemented by $5 in tax payer money. That is absurd. Get leaner. Increase revenue.

For the record, and I have said this multiple times, I am in favor of raising the state gas tax substantially to pay for increased contribution to road construction and maintenance.

No doubt. Even a 1-2 cent increase in the gas tax earmarked for transit can go a long way to helping MARTA out, but they'll have to earn it and quit whining to the General Assembly all the time. As for the agency's lousy management, I think Keith Parker is the guy to turn MARTA around and get them to a more efficient operating state.

[Mutiny77]

Originally Posted by #1MARTAFan

I'll gladly discuss facts and logic with you, but you aren't bringing anything to the table.

LOL, what a way to have a reasonable dialogue. I suppose for you, facts and logic go no further than dollars and cents; we can just throw sociopolitical, cultural, ideological, etc. factors clear out the window.

It would be one thing had you said, "Race plays a minor role compared to financial (mis)management" and that would be a point at least worth discussing and exploring, but to completely discount the role of race as though it's all being pulled out of thin air with at least no historic precedent is just plain silly. It's pretty hard to have a conversation with someone like that.