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.
I would support an increased 1/4 cent MARTA sales tax for 10 years on the following conditions:
(1) The business community must chip in a like amount -- how they do it is up to them;
(2) All new revenues generated must go to beefing up MARTA within its existing service area;
(3) The money not be used for streetcars. Streetcars are a separate issue. If streetcars are deployed on the Beltline they should be funded by the Beltline TAD as originally intended. If they are utilized elsewhere, there should be clear evidence as to construction costs, ongoing maintenance and operation costs and ridership.
I would support an increased 1/4 cent MARTA sales tax for 10 years on the following conditions:
(1) The business community must chip in a like amount -- how they do it is up to them;
(2) All new revenues generated must go to beefing up MARTA within its existing service area;
(3) The money not be used for streetcars. Streetcars are a separate issue. If streetcars are deployed on the Beltline they should be funded by the Beltline TAD as originally intended. If they are utilized elsewhere, there should be clear evidence as to construction costs, ongoing maintenance and operation costs and ridership.
Well, considering this proposal is next to useless, thanks Arjay, we'll take it into consideration.
How WOULD the buisnesses chip in? I don't think they're legally allowed to, and anything along that line would require a similar amendment to the MARTA laws as is being so horribly delayed now.
Considering, by law, MARTA can only serve existing service areas, this is a non issue.
This is just silly. You want the core to be beefed up, but remove the only real possibility to do so. The BeltLine TAD has not yet been succesful enough to build out light rail, or the streetcars to it. So, istead of pushing for transit anyway, like we need no matter the funding source, you wan to just kill it out right. Screw that. The city of Atlanta should choose what it wants, and the maybe the TADcan keep funding later on.
The delay on the vote may not be all bad. That's if they really do get around to looking at a more regional approach. At least the quotes they have in the AJC article (today, didn't see it yet online), indicate Cobb and Gwinnett legislators supported killing the bill this year because Gwinnett and Cobb would not be a part.
But talking and doing are two separate things.
This is asanine on a whole new level. If Gwinnett and Cobb want to be part of regional expansion, then they should be pushing to join MARTA, not killing the MARTA proposals. That, or they should be pushing for GRTA expansion to allow rail.
If they are, in fact, killing the MARTA vote in Fulton and DeKalb, then **** them. They're acting like crabs in damned bucket, yanking those who try to climb out on a ladder off instead of just using the ladder themselves.
Well, considering this proposal is next to useless, thanks Arjay, we'll take it into consideration.
How WOULD the buisnesses chip in? I don't think they're legally allowed to, and anything along that line would require a similar amendment to the MARTA laws as is being so horribly delayed now.
Considering, by law, MARTA can only serve existing service areas, this is a non issue.
This is just silly. You want the core to be beefed up, but remove the only real possibility to do so. The BeltLine TAD has not yet been succesful enough to build out light rail, or the streetcars to it. So, istead of pushing for transit anyway, like we need no matter the funding source, you wan to just kill it out right. Screw that. The city of Atlanta should choose what it wants, and the maybe the TADcan keep funding later on.
Re Item 1, why can't businesses contribute to MARTA funding? Why not simply amend their CIDs around transit? Or implement a transportation fee of 4.9% on Class A rents, which would still leave them lower than comparable cities?
On Item 2, I think this clarifies that MARTA does not seek to expand into Cobb or Gwinnett.
I believe Item 3 is also reasonable. Our only experience with streetcars has been less than stellar. Do we have evidence from other cities that is better? If so, what is it? What IS the ongoing cost of streetcar lines? Do we have data on this? News reports have stated that ridership has dropped sharply and that fare collections produce only a very small part of operation and maintenance costs. And why shouldn't they be funded by the Beltline TAD as originally proposed? If developers are making money on the Beltline, shouldn't those funds go to fulfilling the original promise of the Beltline?
Re Item 1, why can't businesses contribute to MARTA funding? Why not simply amend their CIDs around transit? Or implement a transportation fee of 4.9% on Class A rents, which would still leave them lower than comparable cities?
Because MARTA is not legally allowed to accept funding from that source. As far as I know, and please show me the law where it says otherwise, but MARTA can only get revenue from the sales taxes and lease rights on their properties. Maybe P3s are already allowed, but I don't think they are.
Again, allowing CIDs to directly fund MARTA would require an amendment to the MARTA laws at the state level, like what was attempted, and killed this round.
Quote:
On Item 2, I think this clarifies that MARTA does not seek to expand into Cobb or Gwinnett.
This is just shooting yourself in the foot. SB 330 already had MARTA legally bound to spend collected extra funds within the counties from where they were collected. Limiting any revenue collected to the Clayton, DeKalb, and Fulton would be a death blow to any attempt to have Gwinnett and Cobb join the system at all, which is what you apparently want, for some reason.
What if Gwinnett and Cobb come in of their own choosing? What if they decide that they do want to be part of MARTA? Should they not have that option, and if so, why not? They'd be funding their own transit expansions, just as Clayton is right now. They'd providing funding for the extra staff to pursue projects and manage more routes without hurting system quality.
You're just blocking progress for the sake of blocking progress here.
Quote:
I believe Item 3 is also reasonable. Our only experience with streetcars has been less than stellar. Do we have evidence from other cities that is better? If so, what is it? What IS the ongoing cost of streetcar lines? Do we have data on this? News reports have stated that ridership has dropped sharply and that fare collections produce only a very small part of operation and maintenance costs. And why shouldn't they be funded by the Beltline TAD as originally proposed? If developers are making money on the Beltline, shouldn't those funds go to fulfilling the original promise of the Beltline?
It's been less than stellar in part because the city has been running it, and in part because it didn't grow before the fare took hold.
Portland is doing better. Philadelphia seems to be doing alight. Toronto and San Fransisco too. There're plenty of European cities that are doing fine with their systems. We're not as dense as they are, but given time (such as, the time to build out the whole system!) we could be close, in our own way.
I don't personally have the data, no, but feel free to do some research and find out for us. I'd love to hear the numbers, but you know what would bring more riders? Expansion.
There is no reason that the TAD can't fund it (infact the TAD has been funding the BeltLine this whole time) it's just that, with that whole 2008 thing, the TAD has not been enough for the wanted progress. Building transit along the BeltLine would actually encourage MORE development, which would feed the TAD further, allowing for more construction.
Hey, I'm all for Cobb and Gwinnett wanting to be part of a regional solution, but the ladder analogy is very apt for this situation. MARTA wants to bolster rail and bus service within its service area, so why should Cobb and Gwinnett legislators reject such a proposal, deciding what MARTA can and can't do, when their counties explicitly voted against MARTA and whose county commission chairs refuse to allow their constituents a vote on MARTA (Tim Lee's being Tim Lee, and Charlotte Nash wants "consensus")?
Just gives more ammo to those who feel that MARTA should be separated from state control.
As for businesses funding MARTA, HB 1032 - while not MARTA-specific - would have gone quite a ways towards having businesses contribute money for rail expansion. That bill was never heard in committee.
This is asanine on a whole new level. If Gwinnett and Cobb want to be part of regional expansion, then they should be pushing to join MARTA, not killing the MARTA proposals. That, or they should be pushing for GRTA expansion to allow rail.
If they are, in fact, killing the MARTA vote in Fulton and DeKalb, then **** them. They're acting like crabs in damned bucket, yanking those who try to climb out on a ladder off instead of just using the ladder themselves.
Because MARTA is not legally allowed to accept funding from that source. As far as I know, and please show me the law where it says otherwise, but MARTA can only get revenue from the sales taxes and lease rights on their properties. Maybe P3s are already allowed, but I don't think they are.
Again, allowing CIDs to directly fund MARTA would require an amendment to the MARTA laws at the state level, like what was attempted, and killed this round.
MARTA is already doing public private partnerships in the real estate arena. It also derives substantial revenue by selling advertising to private parties.
And who says they can't accept money from other sources? According to MARTA they certainly can:
State legislators denied the sales tax increase in favor of a statewide transportation funding initiative, according to MARTA spokesperson Saba Long. The combined cost of the projects total more than $5 billion, and MARTA plans to fund them through a half-cent sales tax increase and public-private sphere partnerships, according to Long. “Public-private partnerships could include a community improvement district (CID), a sole company or a grouping of companies along with local and federal partners,” she said. The Atlanta Streetcar is an example of such as partnership because it is funded by local and federal dollars as well as by the CID Central Atlanta Progress, according to Long -
This is just shooting yourself in the foot. SB 330 already had MARTA legally bound to spend collected extra funds within the counties from where they were collected. Limiting any revenue collected to the Clayton, DeKalb, and Fulton would be a death blow to any attempt to have Gwinnett and Cobb join the system at all, which is what you apparently want, for some reason.
What if Gwinnett and Cobb come in of their own choosing? What if they decide that they do want to be part of MARTA? Should they not have that option, and if so, why not? They'd be funding their own transit expansions, just as Clayton is right now. They'd providing funding for the extra staff to pursue projects and manage more routes without hurting system quality.
You're just blocking progress for the sake of blocking progress here.
Au contraire. Stout opposition to increasing the MARTA sales tax has come from areas that say they don't want MARTA.
This would simply clarify matters. For now, MARTA is sticking to beefing up its existing service area. If other areas want to join MARTA at some future date, they can do so by the same mechanism that is already in place.
Quote:
It's [streetcar performance] been less than stellar in part because the city has been running it, and in part because it didn't grow before the fare took hold.
Portland is doing better. Philadelphia seems to be doing alight. Toronto and San Fransisco too. There're plenty of European cities that are doing fine with their systems. We're not as dense as they are, but given time (such as, the time to build out the whole system!) we could be close, in our own way.
I don't personally have the data, no, but feel free to do some research and find out for us. I'd love to hear the numbers, but you know what would bring more riders? Expansion.
There is no reason that the TAD can't fund it (infact the TAD has been funding the BeltLine this whole time) it's just that, with that whole 2008 thing, the TAD has not been enough for the wanted progress. Building transit along the BeltLine would actually encourage MORE development, which would feed the TAD further, allowing for more construction.
In all fairness, the burden of proof falls on those who are proposing a change. Folks who want an increased MARTA tax to pay for a streetcar would make a far more convincing case if they came forward with evidence showing that is financially viable and sustainable and that is a useful transportation alternative.
There are many who don't believe that's the case. What evidence do you have to convince them otherwise?
As for businesses funding MARTA, HB 1032 - while not MARTA-specific - would have gone quite a ways towards having businesses contribute money for rail expansion. That bill was never heard in committee.
This came up fairly late in the session, didn't it? Perhaps next year it can be more fully vetted and discussed. My guess is that it would be favorably received by many in the legislature.
Hopefully the business community will support this as well, since they've been very vocal in pushing for transit expansion.
MARTA is already doing public private partnerships in the real estate arena. It also derives substantial revenue by selling advertising to private parties.
And who says they can't accept money from other sources? According to MARTA they certainly can:
State legislators denied the sales tax increase in favor of a statewide transportation funding initiative, according to MARTA spokesperson Saba Long. The combined cost of the projects total more than $5 billion, and MARTA plans to fund them through a half-cent sales tax increase and public-private sphere partnerships, according to Long. “Public-private partnerships could include a community improvement district (CID), a sole company or a grouping of companies along with local and federal partners,” she said. The Atlanta Streetcar is an example of such as partnership because it is funded by local and federal dollars as well as by the CID Central Atlanta Progress, according to Long -
I would ask that you show that it could be done with P3's & CIDs as you suggest, though. I'd like to see some math on the matter. My gut tells me it'd be good as a padding measure in addition to tax-based funding. It could go to BRT, ART, more light rail, etc.
Quote:
Au contraire. Stout opposition to increasing the MARTA sales tax has come from areas that say they don't want MARTA.
This would simply clarify matters. For now, MARTA is sticking to beefing up its existing service area. If other areas want to join MARTA at some future date, they can do so by the same mechanism that is already in place.
I still see it as adding unnecessary bindings to your own plans. In all versions of the bills, neither Gwinnett nor Cobb were included, at all. In fact, the bills legally required MARTA to submit project lists and such to any county it wanted to build in, and limited the projects to counties which funded MARTA.
If Cobb and Gwinnett leaders somehow see that as an attempt to build into their regions, then no amount of clarifying (again, by shooting yourself in the foot) will fix that level of disconnected thought.
Quote:
In all fairness, the burden of proof falls on those who are proposing a change. Folks who want an increased MARTA tax to pay for a streetcar would make a far more convincing case if they came forward with evidence showing that is financially viable and sustainable and that is a useful transportation alternative.
There are many who don't believe that's the case. What evidence do you have to convince them otherwise?
Page 20 is where the numbers start. It shows that, without expansion, the current streetcar is expected to have 900 daily riders. With the build out of Phase 1 (here model H), the modeling showed just under 14,500 daily riders. I don't know where your boundaries lie, but I say that's respectable. Those numbers could probably be expanded further with more development incentives and more regional transit to feed into / be fed from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arjay57
This came up fairly late in the session, didn't it? Perhaps next year it can be more fully vetted and discussed. My guess is that it would be favorably received by many in the legislature.
Hopefully the business community will support this as well, since they've been very vocal in pushing for transit expansion.
I really do hope that it does pass. It'd be pretty great for both MARTA and GRTA, if they could get the areas to join in.
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.
