MARTA eyeing major expansion up Georgia 400 corridor (Atlanta, Roswell: high schools, income)

[bryantm3]

The visual case against zone fares :: Second Ave. Sagas

did you see the movie "in time" that came out a couple of years ago? it's sort of like that.

atlanta has multiple job centers and doesn't have a clear pattern of where the poor live anymore. studies have shown recently that poverty has rapidly increased in the suburbs of atlanta, while incomes in the inner city are steadily rising. if you can afford to live in midtown and ride a few blocks to where you work, great. but many in the metro area simply do not have the money to live where they work, although that is most desirable. transportation, like education, is a great equalizer in that it provides economic opportunities for the poor that would not otherwise be available. with distance-based and zone-based fares you essentially trap poor people in their own neighbourhoods and away from everyone else.

of course, people in cobb and north fulton would love this sort of system because it keeps the blacks out. but for the rest of us, i can't imagine a worse transit policy to implement to disadvantage minorities and the poor.

transit systems in the US, whether they use distance-based fares or flat fares, simply do not turn a profit. they are a public service, like education. we need to invest in transit as a public service for the enrichment and diversification of society, not try to racket people out of as much money as possible.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

The visual case against zone fares :: Second Ave. Sagas

This article says itself that it is only looking at New York which is different from other cities in that the rich are not as likely to live far away like other cities. Atlanta is not that way, wealthy people are more likely to live in the burbs and take longer MARTA rides.

Originally Posted by bryantm3

transit systems in the US, whether they use distance-based fares or flat fares, simply do not turn a profit.

Ever wonder why the US cannot consistently run profitable transit but other countries do? Because we dump so much of our tax dollars into giving people free highways. Hard to get people to pay the real cost of their commute when they are expecting to get it for free on highways. That is the main problem: make drivers pay for their roads

Just because some places that charge distance based fares have higher fares for certain routes does not mean that distance based fares are the cause of those higher fares. The debate of what the average fare should be is a whole separate debate. We could keep the average fare at $2.50 and it could still vary based on distance.

[cqholt]

Going back a couple pages and referring a comment MattCW said about tapping to get out the station. Implementing distance-based fares would make this simple task, even harder. What if someone didn't have enough money on their card? What's to stop them from walking out the emergency gates, that are not locked from the inside, I think that's a fire hazard?
Maybe MARTA could implement a fare plan like the streetcar is doing.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by cqholt

Going back a couple pages and referring a comment MattCW said about tapping to get out the station. Implementing distance-based fares would make this simple task, even harder. What if someone didn't have enough money on their card? What's to stop them from walking out the emergency gates, that are not locked from the inside, I think that's a fire hazard?

Most large successful transit system do distance based fares. This is not a issue. If you don't have the money to exit then you have to put more money on your card before you are able to exit. Same as if you bought a one-way but really need to go round-trip on today's MARTA.

If you exit through the fire escape you trigger the fire alarm.

There will be some amount of people that will skip the turn styles or what have you in any transit system regardless of what sort of fare system you have. Distance based fares would not be creating any new problems, but solving others.

[cqholt]

Most large successful transit system do distance based fares.

BART and WMATA are the only sizable systems I know that do distance-based fares.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by cqholt

BART and WMATA are the only sizable systems I know that do distance-based fares.

Hong Kong,
Tokyo,
Singapore,
Osaka,
Taipei,
New Jersey (NJT),
New York/Connecticut (Metro North, Long Island RR, others),
Philly's PATCO,
BART,
Chicago's CTA (starting that direction with extra charges from O'Hare),
WMATA,
Toronto,
Berlin,
Amsterdam,
London...

That is just a start. Actually it would be easier to name the cities that do flat rate. Basically all the smaller systems. (I would argue that New York's MTA is not really flat rate, since only the subway in the city center is flat, but any other trains to the burbs are zone.)

[testa50]

Originally Posted by jsvh

Hong Kong,
Tokyo,
Singapore,
Osaka,
Taipei,
New Jersey (NJT),
New York/Connecticut (Metro North, Long Island RR, others),
Philly's PATCO,
BART,
Chicago's CTA (starting that direction with extra charges from O'Hare),
WMATA,
Toronto,
Berlin,
Amsterdam,
London...

That is just a start. Actually it would be easier to name the cities that do flat rate.

A lot of the American ones you named are commuter rail systems, which are a different ballgame from urban metros (I will grant ours is something of a hybrid, once a GA 400 extension enters the mix). In Europe and Asia, distance-based fares are the norm. In the Americas, it seems more standard to use flat-rate fares. Mexico City, Sao Paulo, Rio, and Caracas all are flat-rate in essence.

Frankly, I see enough people who get freaked out with the complexity of MARTA as it is...adding distance-based fares into the equation would make it that much worse. I know our system is really quite easy to understand, but for whatever reason mass transit confuses Americans and I wouldn't want to do anything to discourage people from riding MARTA if they have a bad experience with the distance-based fares.

Let's not forget there are some options in between full distance-based fares and flat-rate fares. Fare zones, for instance, like in Paris. Of course, in Atlanta, the logical zones are ITP and OTP, which are divisive.


Here's an idea: in most of the far-flung stations, people are driving to the station and parking. Why not just impose a parking fee of $1-2/day on those stations instead of adding in the complexity of fare zones? This has the added benefit of encouraging carpooling and so forth.

Then again, people will probably retort that people who park at the stations are doing better than people who drive all the way to work, so they ought not be discouraged by a new parking fee. Which, once again, draws into question the logic of distance-based fares in the first place. We've now come full circle.

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by jsvh

Hong Kong,
Tokyo,
Singapore,
Osaka,
Taipei,
New Jersey (NJT),
New York/Connecticut (Metro North, Long Island RR, others),
Philly's PATCO,
BART,
Chicago's CTA (starting that direction with extra charges from O'Hare),
WMATA,
Toronto,
Berlin,
Amsterdam,
London...

That is just a start. Actually it would be easier to name the cities that do flat rate. Basically all the smaller systems. (I would argue that New York's MTA is not really flat rate, since only the subway in the city center is flat, but any other trains to the burbs are zone.)

America only, Can't compare American transit agencies to those in other countries. Let's keep it related to just HRT technology.
NYC subway is a flat a fare.
MBTA subway is a flat fare.
SEPTA subway is a flat fare.
NJT light rail is flat rate.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by cqholt

America only, Can't compare American transit agencies to those in other countries.

Why not?


The reason transit is so under-used in America is not because it is too complex, or too expensive, or does not cover a large enough area. It is because our cities lack density that transit needs to be effective. And our cities lack density because we subsidize the suburbs. You are not going to going to fix any transportation problems by giving cheap rides to the suburbs.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by testa50

Here's an idea: in most of the far-flung stations, people are driving to the station and parking. Why not just impose a parking fee of $1-2/day on those stations instead of adding in the complexity of fare zones? This has the added benefit of encouraging carpooling and so forth.

We need to stop trying to come up with gimmicks to try to "trick" people into riding transit. We just need to scale back our subsidizes that make cars so attractive. Put tolls on the highways to pay their cost, and stop forcing property owners to build parking. Market forces will make people realize how expensive a car-centric lifestyle is if you let it. Let a privatized MARTA figure out the best way to attract riders and bring in fares. That is what the private sector is great at.

No one cares if their MARTA fare is $2 cheaper and an easier to understand flat-fare if they have a free expressway and $200 a month cheaper rent in the suburbs. But tack on a $8 toll and $100 a month in parking for a space a mile walk from work and all the sudden a car-dependent life is not as attractive and ridership will increase.