Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...Says the troll-wannabe clown show with no brains and no purpose other than to repeatedly volunteer herself as a comedic punching bag for the serious contributors to the Atlanta Forum.
I also recall alco89 directly asking you earlier in the thread if you had any suggestions of what we could do to help ease our traffic problems.
Do you have anything useful to contribute to this discussion (or any other discussion) other than to repeatedly expose yourself to be the foolish idiot that you are?
...Anything...anything at all?
Quote:
Originally Posted by alco89
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtcorndog
Where have I proposed that?
You keep talking about what I want, but how do you know? Apparently you are too bust dreaming up ridiculous $15 billion Heavy Rail transit to Athens to read what others post.
You can't argue the facts so you jump to "If we had it your way..." statements.
Pssstttt... that isn't a good look.
Also, while I'm helping you out, typing out what can be said in 100 words in 10,000 words is pointless... get to the point already and maybe people might consider taking some of things you say seriously. More isn't always better and being long-winded is not viewed favorably.
You're welcome.
Seriously though, I may or may not speak for anyone else, but I'd LOVE to know what you think we should do to ease our traffic problems. Seriously.
If one is economically-disadvantaged, it should not (and absolutely would not) cost them anywhere near as much as $8.00 to ride from College Park to Buckhead in a distance-based fare structure where most riders would pay no more than $0.25 per-mile in 2014 dollars and where economically-disadvantaged riders would likely pay deeply-discounted fare rates of about $0.10 per-mile in 2014 dollars.
At a discounted fare rate of $0.10 per-mile in a distance-based fare structure, economically-disadvantaged riders would pay about $1.50 one-way to ride from the College Park MARTA Station to the Buckhead MARTA Station.
Heck, BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) only charges the economically-disadvantaged $4.35 one-way ($0.09 per-mile) to travel the roughly 49-mile distance on regional HRT between the Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station and the San Francisco International Airport BART Station in their distance-based fare system.
If BART only charges the economically-disadvantaged $4.35 one-way to ride 49 miles on its regional HRT system, there's no way that it should cost as much as $8.00 one-way for the economically-disadvantaged (or even the non-economically disadvantaged) to ride only about 15 miles on MARTA if (and when) it were to adopt a distance-based fare structure.
Your numbers are completely wrong. First of all, in terms of dollars, San Francisco has the worst income inequality in the entire nation. Citing their transit system as some sort of pathway to economic mobility is terrible logic in the first place.
Secondly, the numbers you cite are not for low-income individuals. BART has no system for working class individuals to commute— they must pay full fare. The discounted fare you cite is only for individuals who cannot work; namely, children, the elderly, and disabled.
And even still, those who fall under those categories are charged higher rates for higher commutes— even though the train will run to their destination regardless of whether they ride or not.
The truth about BART's system is that the minimum fare is $1.75, just to ride one station. A 14 mile ride, which is the distance between College Park and Buckhead station, would cost $4.15, a far cry from the $1.50 you cited.
While the distance-based fare system might be an excellent tool to make money for our cash-strapped system, I don't think people are considering the impact such high fares will have on economic mobility and the poor across metro Atlanta. Most people that ride MARTA do not have a choice; they do not own cars. If we remove the only engine for work opportunities in our spread-out metro, our economy will suffer, and the new lines we are able to build would not be able to serve those who needed the extra transit in the first place.
Originally Posted by Born 2 Roll If one is economically-disadvantaged, it should not (and absolutely would not) cost them anywhere near as much as $8.00 to ride from College Park to Buckhead in a distance-based fare structure where most riders would pay no more than $0.25 per-mile in 2014 dollars and where economically-disadvantaged riders would likely pay deeply-discounted fare rates of about $0.10 per-mile in 2014 dollars.
At a discounted fare rate of $0.10 per-mile in a distance-based fare structure, economically-disadvantaged riders would pay about $1.50 one-way to ride from the College Park MARTA Station to the Buckhead MARTA Station.
Heck, BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) only charges the economically-disadvantaged $4.35 one-way ($0.09 per-mile) to travel the roughly 49-mile distance on regional HRT between the Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station and the San Francisco International Airport BART Station in their distance-based fare system.
If BART only charges the economically-disadvantaged $4.35 one-way to ride 49 miles on its regional HRT system, there's no way that it should cost as much as $8.00 one-way for the economically-disadvantaged (or even the non-economically disadvantaged) to ride only about 15 miles on MARTA if (and when) it were to adopt a distance-based fare structure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryantm3
Your numbers are completely wrong. First of all, in terms of dollars, San Francisco has the worst income inequality in the entire nation. Citing their transit system as some sort of pathway to economic mobility is terrible logic in the first place.
Well, IIRC, Metro Atlanta has also been cited as having some of the absolute worst economic mobility chances and income inequality figures in recent surveys, so it's kind of difficult to deride San Francisco for its economic mobility and income inequality stats when Atlanta appears to be in much the same boat as the Bay Area but just with relatively lower maximum incomes for those on the highest end of the income scale.
I also was not necessarily citing the Bay Area's regional HRT system (BART) as "some sort of pathway to economic mobility" anywhere near as much as I was refuting gtcornydog's assertion that each MARTA rider would have to pay a fare as high as $8.00 one-way for MARTA's HRT system to be financially-viable under a funding setup where operating revenues were collected from transit-owned real estate development along lines and a distance-based fare structure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryantm3
Secondly, the numbers you cite are not for low-income individuals. BART has no system for working class individuals to commute— they must pay full fare. The discounted fare you cite is only for individuals who cannot work; namely, children, the elderly, and disabled.
And even still, those who fall under those categories are charged higher rates for higher commutes— even though the train will run to their destination regardless of whether they ride or not.
One must keep-in-mind that one of the main reasons why the riders in those discounted categories are charged more for longer commutes is because the BART regional HRT runs much farther (and thus has more operating, maintenance and capital expenses) than a smaller HRT system like MARTA (...BART's longest HRT line is 50 miles in length while MARTA's longest HRT line is about 24 miles in length).
Also, despite being a regional HRT system, BART functions as a regional commuter rail system for most of the Bay Area which because of its geography has an extremely-constricted controlled-access and arterial road network...making high-capacity passenger rail transit service an absolute necessity, hence the distance-based fare structure and the higher fares.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryantm3
The truth about BART's system is that the minimum fare is $1.75, just to ride one station.
Even with a minimum non-discounted fare of $1.75, BART's minimum non-discounted fare of $1.75 per-trip is still 75 cents cheaper than MARTA's minimum non-discounted fare of $2.50 per-trip.
With the distance-based fare structure I am advocating, the minimum discounted fare would be no more than $0.25 per-mile in 2014 dollars for most riders (unless one is using some type of higher-priced premium service like first-class or business-class service on an express train or a regional commuter train) with economically-disadvantaged riders paying fares of $0.10 per-mile in 2014 dollars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryantm3
A 14 mile ride, which is the distance between College Park and Buckhead station, would cost $4.15, a far cry from the $1.50 you cited.
While that 14-mile ride on BART's regional HRT system is actually closer to being $4.10 ($4.10 is the cost of a roughly 14-mile one-way ride between BART's 19th Street Station in Oakland and BART's Daly City Station), the distance-based fare structure that I am advocating for Atlanta's MARTA would only charge $1.50 for a 14-mile one-way ride between College Park and Buckhead....That's because the distance-based fare structure that I am advocating for MARTA would only levy distance-based fares of no more than $0.20-0.25 per-mile in 2014 dollars for non-premium non-economically disadvantaged riders and discounted distance-based fares of $0.10-0.15 per-mile in 2014 dollars for economically-disadvantaged riders and special groups.
The distance-based fare structure that I am advocating for MARTA would also feature low-income and special group discounts that would be much-broader than the discounts that a regional HRT system like BART currently features.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryantm3
While the distance-based fare system might be an excellent tool to make money for our cash-strapped system, I don't think people are considering the impact such high fares will have on economic mobility and the poor across metro Atlanta. Most people that ride MARTA do not have a choice; they do not own cars. If we remove the only engine for work opportunities in our spread-out metro, our economy will suffer, and the new lines we are able to build would not be able to serve those who needed the extra transit in the first place.
These are some excellent points which illustrate why economically-disadvantaged transit-dependent riders should receive heavily-discounted fares in ANY fare structure, whether it be MARTA's current flat-rate fare structure or a future distance-based fare structure....Which is why I am advocating that the economically-disadvantaged transit-dependent and special groups receive discounts of over 60% on any future distance-based fare structure.
Having transit-dependent riders pay minimum fares of only $0.10 per-trip is much better than having transit-dependent riders pay minimum fares of $1.75 per-trip.
It should also be noted that in an expanded Atlanta regional transit scheme which utilizes a distance-based fare structure, that most transit operating revenue would by far come from revenues from real estate development along transit lines, private sponsorships and private donations....All lucrative revenues which would help subsidize fares for all transit riders, particularly economically-disadvantaged transit-dependent riders who would have to ride 25 miles in a future distance-based fare structure before paying the current $2.50 trip fare that they currently pay.
That's a mighty interesting comment about the man or woman who is possibly the single most informative poster on this forum.
Thanks, toll_booth....That kind of compliment coming from someone like you and a poster of your caliber means a whole lot and is priceless.
I appreciate the compliments, I really do.
Though, I don't necessarily think of myself as being the most informative poster as there are many other posters that are just such awesomely-informative contributors to this forum.
I don't want to name names because the list of excellent posters/contributors to this forum is long and I don't want to leave anybody out, but the amount of technical knowledge, historical perspective and first-hand knowledge that exists amongst the posters on this forum most likely makes the Atlanta Forum one of the best on the City-Data network and anywhere online.
The Atlanta Forum really is extremely-underrated in the quality of knowledge and perspective that is available here on everything from transportation to education to quality-of-life and developmental issues and so on.
We've got some really high-octane contributors here on the Atlanta Forum and that is probably a vast understatement.
As for our misguided friend, gtcorndog...
gtcorndog is welcome to become a serious contributor to the Atlanta Forum anytime that gtcorndog feels like it.
But gtcorndog's attack on you was completely out-of-line, particularly since he/she appeared to be attacking you because he/she seemed to be too afraid to attack me directly for whatever reason.
If gtcorndog has an issue with me, gtcorndog needs to address me directly and not unnecessarily attack other posters who are on here making serious and meaningful contributions to this forum.
I really would personally like for gtcorndog to stop the unnecessary attention-grabbing antics and the acting-out and become a serious contributor to the otherwise-exceptional Atlanta Forum...
...But if for whatever reason gtcorndog feels that they cannot become a serious part of these discussions, then he/she should expect to continue to be treated like a comedic online punching/kickboxing bag whenever he/she gets out-of-line and starts unnecessarily attacking other posters making serious contributions to the Atlanta Forum.
Thanks, toll_booth....That kind of compliment coming from someone like you and a poster of your caliber means a whole lot and is priceless.
I appreciate the compliments, I really do.
Though, I don't necessarily think of myself as being the most informative poster as there are many other posters that are just such awesomely-informative contributors to this forum.
I don't want to name names because the list of excellent posters/contributors to this forum is long and I don't want to leave anybody out, but the amount of technical knowledge, historical perspective and first-hand knowledge that exists amongst the posters on this forum most likely makes the Atlanta Forum one of the best on the City-Data network and anywhere online.
The Atlanta Forum really is extremely-underrated in the quality of knowledge and perspective that is available here on everything from transportation to education to quality-of-life and developmental issues and so on.
We've got some really high-octane contributors here on the Atlanta Forum and that is probably a vast understatement.
Thanks.
Yeah, I think we've mostly got a good bunch here. This is one of the few places I post online that both (1) has rather sizable differences of opinions on many matters, and (2) rarely makes my blood boil. Usually forums are one or the other, but not both.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
