MARTA eyeing major expansion up Georgia 400 corridor (Atlanta, Marietta: fit in, lease)

[MattCW]

What expanses of land? At all but maybe one or two of the stations proposed for either GA-400 or I-20 East, the land for expansive parking simply does not exist, and the proposals are all for either minimal parking, or parking decks anyways. Even for commuter rail, there is simply minimal land available, and what little of it exists must be used for the parking decks.

[Born 2 Roll]

Originally Posted by Ant131531

MARTA isn't a extensive transit system that I think deserve people to pay more than 2.50.

Under a distance-based fare structure where passengers pay a fare rate of $0.30 per-mile, the current one-way flat-rate fare of $2.50 would not be paid until one had traveled more than 8 miles.

That means that the lower fare rates to travel 8 or fewer miles would encourage more passengers to use transit for shorter trips while the higher fare rates for trips of more 8 miles would enable longer-distance transit trips to be funded at a much more adequate level so that the longer-distance transit service can be available to use at the high level that it is needed.

Originally Posted by Ant131531

This isn't Tokyo where it's a high tech system, clean and efficient. This is Atlanta, a ghetto unplanned mess of a city.

But as ridiculous as it may sound to some skeptics, the type of clean, efficient and extensive high-tech transit system that an established major international city like Tokyo may enjoy is what an up-and-coming major international city like Atlanta should be aiming for with its ENTIRE transportation system (BOTH roads and transit).

The increased revenues from a distance-based fare-structure (along with the substantial revenues from extensive private investment) enables a major metropolitan transit system to be clean, efficient and extensive in reach like a transit system in a fast-growing metro region should be.

[Born 2 Roll]

Originally Posted by MattCW

What expanses of land?

The relatively large expanses of land as in the large and medium-sized surface lots surrounding and adjacent to 18 existing MARTA stations like College Park, East Point, Lakewood-McPherson, Oakland City, West End, Hamilton E Holmes, West Lake, Ashby, King Memorial, Inman Park-Reynoldstown, Edgewood-Candler Park, East Lake, Avondale, Kensington, Indian Creek, Brookhaven, Chamblee and Doraville.

Many of those MARTA stations even have additional spillover parking lots that are rarely used and that sit empty for most of the time.

These significantly-sized surface parking areas is real estate that MARTA already owns is land that sorely needs to be developed into revenue-producing high-density mixed-use transit-oriented development (...high-density mixed-use transit-oriented development like condos, apartments, offices, restaurants, retail/shopping and hotels) so that MARTA can have much more revenue available to fund transit operations.

In a political environment where additional funding from traditional revenue sources is impossible to obtain, a transit system like MARTA absolutely needs to be in the real estate business.

Originally Posted by MattCW

At all but maybe one or two of the stations proposed for either GA-400 or I-20 East, the land for expansive parking simply does not exist, and the proposals are all for either minimal parking, or parking decks anyways. Even for commuter rail, there is simply minimal land available, and what little of it exists must be used for the parking decks.

Even the development of a relatively small portion of land at a transit station can bring in a significant amount of revenue.

In cases where there is very little, if any surrounding or adjacent land on which to develop, the transit station itself could serve as a high-density mixed-use transit-oriented development with the transit station on the lower level or levels of a mixed-use/multi-use multi-story structure and other uses above it.

The mixed-use transit-oriented development above the transit station where there is very little or no land around the station to develop makes the transit station itself into a multi-use destination instead of just a place where only buses and trains are boarded and de-boarded.

Even elevated parking decks could be utilized for development with uses either on lower levels under the parking structure or on both lower levels and higher levels below and above the vertical parking structure.

There's very few excuses for not (aggressively) utilizing a revenue stream that is as beneficial and as lucrative as real estate investment.

[cqholt]

The relatively large expanses of land as in the large and medium-sized surface lots surrounding and adjacent to 18 existing MARTA stations like College Park, East Point, Lakewood-McPherson, Oakland City, West End, Hamilton E Holmes, West Lake, Ashby, King Memorial, Inman Park-Reynoldstown, Edgewood-Candler Park, East Lake, Avondale, Kensington, Indian Creek, Brookhaven, Chamblee and Doraville.

Many of those MARTA stations even have additional spillover parking lots that are rarely used and that sit empty for most of the time.

10 of those stations are being marketed to developers to do exactly what your talking about.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by MattCW

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

And you know what happens to those private companies that send their cusomers away and treat them poorly? They go out of business? You know what happens to a public one? Nothin. They continue to treat their customers terribly becuase they have tax dollars that you have to pay covering their pay check.

If public companies are so great at providing everything we need, why didn't command economies and communism work out?

Originally Posted by MattCW

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.

Hong Kong's privatized transit system seems to do just fine and generate plenty of profits from their 186% farebox recovery ratio. (MTR Corp does development as well, but there are examples of smaller transit companies that do not).

McDonalds also makes much of its money from land ownership. Should we start giving them tax subsidies and have the government seize and run their business?
http://money.howstuffworks.com/mcdonalds2.htm
McDonald's - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't think I am getting how land ownership is some how a unique issue for transportation. Why are business not allowed to profit from the land they own?

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by cqholt

WMATA benefits from federal funding and serving the nations capital.

MARTA gets a good bit of federal funding, too -- e.g., $101 million in 2010, $85 million in 2011.

I was under the impression the Metro got most of its funding from local governments.

[MattCW]

Originally Posted by jsvh

And you know what happens to those private companies that send their cusomers away and treat them poorly? They go out of business? You know what happens to a public one? Nothin. They continue to treat their customers terribly becuase they have tax dollars that you have to pay covering their pay check.

Exactly, that's why ATT filed for bankruptcy last year and...wait, what was that? Oh? They're still running? So I guess the concept of people being able to take their business elsewhere just isn't valid which means these places stay in power while providing subpar service.

If public companies are so great at providing everything we need, why didn't command economies and communism work out?

Because we're talking about public utilities, not every business.
[qupte]
Hong Kong's privatized transit system seems to do just fine and generate plenty of profits from their 186% farebox recovery ratio. (MTR Corp does development as well, but there are examples of smaller transit companies that do not).[/quote]
They still make the bulk of their profit from land. Even so, they have twice the per-mile ridership of New York, which comes close to breaking even at 76% farebox recovery ratio.

McDonalds also makes much of its money from land ownership. Should we start giving them tax subsidies and have the government seize and run their business?
HowStuffWorks "McDonald's Real Estate"
McDonald's - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Again, McDonalds is NOT a public utility! A town won't thrive or die on the existence or non-existence of a McDonalds. It might thrive or die on the existence or non-existence of public transportation however.

I don't think I am getting how land ownership is some how a unique issue for transportation. Why are business not allowed to profit from the land they own?

What? I don't even understand what this is asking.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by MattCW

Exactly, that's why ATT filed for bankruptcy last year and...wait, what was that? Oh? They're still running? So I guess the concept of people being able to take their business elsewhere just isn't valid which means these places stay in power while providing subpar service.

Why would the provider with the highest rated customer service go out of business? AT&T tops J.D. Power customer service rating for first time - Computerworld

*However I will add that monopolies have little incentive to provide good service, and must be prevented and broken up like the old AT&T was.

Originally Posted by MattCW

Because we're talking about public utilities, not every business.

Again, McDonalds is NOT a public utility! A town won't thrive or die on the existence or non-existence of a McDonalds. It might thrive or die on the existence or non-existence of public transportation however.

What? I don't even understand what this is asking.

Then please explain what makes something a "public utility" besides being government run.

If 73 million people in the US are getting their water from a private company, is it still a "public utility"?
NAWC : Private Water Solutions

What about land line phone service? Cable TV?

[MattCW]

Originally Posted by jsvh

Why would the provider with the highest rated customer service go out of business? AT&T tops J.D. Power customer service rating for first time - Computerworld

That's an industry poll, try looking at other sources. Even so, I only pulled ATT out of my hat quickly. There are plenty of examples of companies with poor customer service record, that still exist and still provide terrible service.

*However I will add that monopolies have little incentive to provide good service, and must be prevented and broken up like the old AT&T was.

This is off-topic, but you don't know what you're talking about. The divestiture was due to ATT trying to actually become a monopoly and expand into computers. They backed off, but a judge with a grudge wouldn't let them. They've spent most of the past decade putting back the pieces so we're close to where we were when they were broken up. Even so, they used to be absolutely stellar because their ideology at the time was one that focused on the customer. The divestiture also got rid of Bell labs which unlike the current incarnation, was not pure-profit driven.

Then please explain what makes something a "public utility" besides being government run.

A service that serves a public need.

If 73 million people in the US are getting their water from a private company, is it still a "public utility"?
NAWC : Private Water Solutions

What about land line phone service? Cable TV?

Yes, they are, so are power companies. They just happen to be profitable so they can be run by private companies. In my county, the water is a government-run public utility.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by MattCW

This is off-topic, but you don't know what you're talking about. The divestiture was due to ATT trying to actually become a monopoly and expand into computers. They backed off, but a judge with a grudge wouldn't let them. They've spent most of the past decade putting back the pieces so we're close to where we were when they were broken up. Even so, they used to be absolutely stellar because their ideology at the time was one that focused on the customer. The divestiture also got rid of Bell labs which unlike the current incarnation, was not pure-profit driven.

You seem to have a personal bone to pick there. We can drop the AT&T example, but I still say monopolies (and oligopolies) are bad and should be broken up.

Originally Posted by MattCW

A service that serves a public need.

Power? Food? Shelter? Why are we letting private companies run these things?

Originally Posted by MattCW

Yes, they are, so are power companies. They just happen to be profitable so they can be run by private companies. In my county, the water is a government-run public utility.

So certain places on the Earth operate under different laws of economics where utilities can be profitably and successfully run by private companies, but other places it won't work? How can we tell these two regions apart?