MARTA Seeks Public Input As Red Line Expansion Moves Forward (Atlanta: 2015, how much)

[bu2]

Originally Posted by cqholt

Rich people complained.

I guess since MARTA doesn't have the money anyway, its easy for them to cave at the first sign of opposition.

It does seem like a huge expenditure for limited benefit.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by iwas99x

If only the line would expand south and east and west.

They're working on the plans to expand east and west and with commuter rail to the south and light rail through the Clifton corridor. They don't have the money for any but the commuter rail stub in Clayton to the south.

[Zanarkand A East]

Still waiting on heavy rail expansion in South DeKalb...

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by Zanarkand A East

Still waiting on heavy rail expansion in South DeKalb...

I-20 East is in the running for expansion along with 400N and clifton corridor.

[Made_it_To_the_Metroplex]

Originally Posted by cqholt

Rich people complained.

The very same reason that Dallas's DART has no line up the Dallas North Tollway, which runs right thru the Park Cities (Highland Park and University Park). Heck, some exits on the tollway in that area have ramps going in one direction, to keep traffic going in the "right" direction. That corridor in Dallas desperately needs a line, but it will never happen sadly.

[jero23]

Originally Posted by bu2

I guess since MARTA doesn't have the money anyway, its easy for them to cave at the first sign of opposition.

It does seem like a huge expenditure for limited benefit.

MARTA may actually not true anymore. The recent legislation allows for MARTA to have the mechanisms to get the fund any future capital projects, i.e. maintenance, expansions, etc.

[toll_booth]

Originally Posted by jero23

MARTA may actually not true anymore. The recent legislation allows for MARTA to have the mechanisms to get the fund any future capital projects, i.e. maintenance, expansions, etc.

Which is why finally making the 50/50 removal permanent was so huge. I think that even in this state, the political hurdles needed to fund a transit project are lower than those needed to provide a steady source of funding for the system.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by toll_booth

Which is why finally making the 50/50 removal permanent was so huge. I think that even in this state, the political hurdles needed to fund a transit project are lower than those needed to provide a steady source of funding for the system.

You've got it backwards. The 50/50 rule was so that some money would be saved for expansion and not spent on daily operations. They've gotten exceptions because they have been spending more than 50% on daily operations.

[toll_booth]

Originally Posted by bu2

You've got it backwards. The 50/50 rule was so that some money would be saved for expansion and not spent on daily operations. They've gotten exceptions because they have been spending more than 50% on daily operations.

No, think about it. Whatever state funding MARTA might receive for projects now, that's money that MARTA doesn't have to spend on projects without worrying about violating the 50/50 rule. So it can lobby for such funding with much less worry.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by toll_booth

No, think about it. Whatever state funding MARTA might receive for projects now, that's money that MARTA doesn't have to spend on projects without worrying about violating the 50/50 rule. So it can lobby for such funding with much less worry.

I'm thinking about it and still don't understand what you are saying.

MARTA receives money from the state for projects but chooses not to spend it on those projects? You've got me confused.