MARTA eyeing major expansion up Georgia 400 corridor (Atlanta, East Point: apartments, condos)

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by Ant131531

And that's the attitude that makes MARTA lose more and more riders every year! Great job discouraging more people from riding! As less people ride, the less service there is, the more delays, the less security and more crime.

Explain to me again how free roads are making more people ride MARTA?

If you have pay for the $10 worth of road you are using vs $3.50 worth of MARTA then I think many would reconsider driving. But at $0 for roads and $2.50 for MARTA it is hard to compete. Plus per my earlier links, subsidized transit is shown to provide a worse experience for all.

[AnsleyPark]

Originally Posted by jsvh

Give me an example of a single industry that does not provide an economic benefit to the community. All of them encourage new developments near where they locate jobs (In addition to providing direct salaries to employees). They encourage suppliers to relocate to the area. They increase tax collections. Why aren't you giving tax dollars to that new restaurant down the street that hired a bunch of people and bought food from a local supplier? If you aren't eating at the restaurant aren't you a freeloader from that economic benefit?

Transportation is no different.

The very nature of transportation - that of being owned and funded by the public - makes it far different from the restaurant. Public services and entities have an inherent moral obligation to the public. A private entity may be forced to follow regulations promulgated by moral concerns, but, they have no innate moral obligation to the public. They may chose to do what is morally right because that improves their bottom line. But they have no natural moral obligation.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by AnsleyPark

...Public services and entities have an inherent moral obligation to the public. A private entity may be forced to follow regulations promulgated by moral concerns, but, they have no innate moral obligation to the public. They may chose to do what is morally right because that improves their bottom line. But they have no natural moral obligation.

But which usually provides a better customer service experience and product? A private entity or a public one?

But I am not even necessarily arguing that we need to cut out transportation entirely from having a public component. All I am saying is we should charge by use like we do with water (which is a public utility).

[SAAN]

I really hope this isnt going to be the usual.

-MARTA has a meeting to expand
-People get exited and start talking about the benefits of it
-The NIMBY's jump in, the it will bring crime jumps in, the my property value will drop, the do we really need marta out here jumps in
-All that is focused in the the minor disadvantages in stead of the major advantages
-Somehow it ends up just being talk with no progress made
-Months and years go by again, with not one brick laid

-We are all here having this same exact conversation again, hoping and dreaming of what a MARTA expansion will do and how it will help.

[kferq]

Originally Posted by jsvh

But which usually provides a better customer service experience and product? A private entity or a public one?

But I am not even necessarily arguing that we need to cut out transportation entirely from having a public component. All I am saying is we should charge by use like we do with water (which is a public utility).

And which is more focused on the overall economy, a private entity or a public one?

But I am not saying that we need to cut out transportation entirely from having a private component or that we should not charge reasonable fees (for both transit and roads). Your arguments on incentives are valid. All I am saying, is that if you charge exactly what a transportation costs to the users, you will stiffle economic growth. Buisness will move elsewhere. The public subsidy from tax dollars is the cost of enhanced economic growth.

[Gulch]

Originally Posted by SAAN

I really hope this isnt going to be the usual.

-MARTA has a meeting to expand
-People get exited and start talking about the benefits of it
-The NIMBY's jump in, the it will bring crime jumps in, the my property value will drop, the do we really need marta out here jumps in
-All that is focused in the the minor disadvantages in stead of the major advantages
-Somehow it ends up just being talk with no progress made
-Months and years go by again, with not one brick laid

-We are all here having this same exact conversation again, hoping and dreaming of what a MARTA expansion will do and how it will help.

North Fulton doesn't have the hurdle of approving a MARTA tax like Cobb and Gwinnett, plus the only thing that's been holding up a North Line extension is lack of $$$.

[AnsleyPark]

Originally Posted by jsvh

But which usually provides a better customer service experience and product? A private entity or a public one?

But I am not even necessarily arguing that we need to cut out transportation entirely from having a public component. All I am saying is we should charge by use like we do with water (which is a public utility).

Agreed. But it's getting the money and having the political will to do so. Heck, our politicians cannot even keep the federal government open. I doubt that the local politicos can pass such legislation re: pay for use, any time in the near future. And, I'm unconvinced that such is the proper model regardless.

[MattCW]

Originally Posted by jsvh

But which usually provides a better customer service experience and product? A private entity or a public one?

Simple, a public one. Private folks just say "don't like it? well go elsewhere then!" while government run semi-monopolies have constituents to look after.

But I am not even necessarily arguing that we need to cut out transportation entirely from having a public component. All I am saying is we should charge by use like we do with water (which is a public utility).

The difference is that while water is direct revenue quid pro quo, transit is indirect revenue. The great private companies in history that everyone points to like the Los Angeles Railway, or Pacific electric all had one thing in common. Namely that they had significant holdings of land or infrastructure (electricity) that they could generate profit off of, that wouldn't exist without the transit line. Unless you get a private entity to buy up all land along a transit line and around all the stations, a private entity wouldn't generate a profit running the transit either. Sure, you might get someone to buy a lot of land around a single transit station, but that would only generate profit for the station, not running the line elsewhere. The reality of today is that there is very little land available cheap enough for a private entity to buy it for transit-oriented development while also owning the line. Since the "state" would be the one to profit off of transit-driven economic activities, it makes sense that the state should provide the funding.

[SAAN]

Originally Posted by Gulch

North Fulton doesn't have the hurdle of approving a MARTA tax like Cobb and Gwinnett, plus the only thing that's been holding up a North Line extension is lack of $$$.

True, but the issue has always been $$$ and unless we pay an extra 1% in DeKalb and Fulton or a miracle of Cobb or Gwinnett paying 1% , the issue will always be $$$ because the state is not going to fund MARTA.

[Born 2 Roll]

Originally Posted by MattCW

The difference is that while water is direct revenue quid pro quo, transit is indirect revenue. The great private [transit] companies in history that everyone points to like the Los Angeles Railway, or Pacific electric all had one thing in common. Namely that they had significant holdings of land or infrastructure (electricity) that they could generate profit off of, that wouldn't exist without the transit line. Unless you get a private entity to buy up all land along a transit line and around all the stations, a private entity wouldn't generate a profit running the transit either. Sure, you might get someone to buy a lot of land around a single transit station, but that would only generate profit for the station, not running the line elsewhere. The reality of today is that there is very little land available cheap enough for a private entity to buy it for transit-oriented development while also owning the line. Since the "state" would be the one to profit off of transit-driven economic activities, it makes sense that the state should provide the funding.

These are some very good and very key points, particularly the section that is bolded.

Though, a private entity does not necessarily have to buy up all land along transit lines and around transit stations for real estate holdings along transit lines to generate profits in an urban/metropolitan area in the 21st Century where most surrounding land along transit lines and around transit stations has already been developed.

Real estate profits can be generated from the relatively large expanses of land around transit stations that are typically used for parking at suburban stations.

Real estate profits can be generated by constructing high-density mixed-use transit-oriented development on those relatively large expanses of land and building the parking area in a horizontal structure under that high-density mixed-use transit-oriented development.

Parking can also be built in an elevated vertical parking structure adjacent to the high-density mixed-use transit-oriented development where outdoor surface parking spaces might have been placed in past eras.

The airspace over and above grade-separated transit lines and transit stations in areas with existing development can also be utilized for high-density mixed-use transit-oriented development.

Large metropolitan transit entities are going to have buy relatively large expanses of land around transit stations for parking, particularly in suburban areas anyways, they might as well use that land for the development of revenue-producing real estate development that can help pay (and subsidize) the costs of transit operations.