MARTA visiting Emory/CDC area to discuss expansion (Decatur, Covington: apartment, to live)

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by DirkMcGirt

So... your argument comes down to the idea that MARTA should spend $1.2 billion NOT to add new riders.

I disagree and think this is absurdly illogical... but I respect your willingness to take a bold stance however nonsensical it is.

My stance is that your ideas that:

1)The new ridership

and

2) The total ridership

Are too low too justify the cost are unfounded since the first on its own meets system averages, and the second vastly surpases that average. Yes new riders are important, but extending mobilty for existing users is also an important aspect of an agency. Not only that, but this option generates new riders to the extent that they, on their own, justify the route.

[DirkMcGirt]

Originally Posted by fourthwarden

My stance is that your ideas that:

1)The new ridership

and

2) The total ridership

Are too low too justify the cost are unfounded since the first on its own meets system averages, and the second vastly surpases that average. Yes new riders are important, but extending mobility for existing users is also an important aspect of an agency. Not only that, but this option generates new riders to the extent that they, on their own, justify the route.

There is no ROI on spending $1.2 billion to allow existing users more mobility. If you are going to drop $1.2 billion, there needs to be huge incremental growth to ridership. If this route doesn't provide new riders, the find an expansion that will. It is this 'non business' mindset that led MARTA into an abyss of red numbers. They start taking a business mindset and listening to the auditor's suggestions and suddenly MARTA is in the black. Don't go back to the old, foolish governmental way of thinking. Run MARTA like a business and make sound financial decisions. This isn't a hard concept.

Plus, MARTA predicted a total of 17,800 boardings daily (in 2030) on the 8.7 miles of rail. That is less than 2,000 boardings per mile of rail. MARTA rail averages about 4,800 riders per mile. Your incorrect assumptions are based on your incorrect math in your previous post. This is very simple math.

[scobby]

I think that it is much cheaper to build a light as rail over the ground to avoid any digging and traffic.
There is no progress or development without a good public transportation.

[bryantm3]

Originally Posted by DirkMcGirt

There is no ROI on spending $1.2 billion to allow existing users more mobility. If you are going to drop $1.2 billion, there needs to be huge incremental growth to ridership. If this route doesn't provide new riders, the find an expansion that will. It is this 'non business' mindset that led MARTA into an abyss of red numbers. They start taking a business mindset and listening to the auditor's suggestions and suddenly MARTA is in the black. Don't go back to the old, foolish governmental way of thinking. Run MARTA like a business and make sound financial decisions. This isn't a hard concept.

Plus, MARTA predicted a total of 17,800 boardings daily (in 2030) on the 8.7 miles of rail. That is less than 2,000 boardings per mile of rail. MARTA rail averages about 4,800 riders per mile. Your incorrect assumptions are based on your incorrect math in your previous post. This is very simple math.

oh, i know who you are— it's gtcorndog guys, he's back!

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by DirkMcGirt

There is no ROI on spending $1.2 billion to allow existing users more mobility. If you are going to drop $1.2 billion, there needs to be huge incremental growth to ridership. If this route doesn't provide new riders, the find an expansion that will. It is this 'non business' mindset that led MARTA into an abyss of red numbers. They start taking a business mindset and listening to the auditor's suggestions and suddenly MARTA is in the black. Don't go back to the old, foolish governmental way of thinking. Run MARTA like a business and make sound financial decisions. This isn't a hard concept.

Plus, MARTA predicted a total of 17,800 boardings daily (in 2030) on the 8.7 miles of rail. That is less than 2,000 boardings per mile of rail. MARTA rail averages about 4,800 riders per mile. Your incorrect assumptions are based on your incorrect math in your previous post. This is very simple math.

Compare that price to what upgrading all the roads to and from freeways or building a freeway to the area. I am sure the price tags are comparable in that sense.
This large employment center needs rail, because the roads are congested and adding more lanes will not solve the congestion issues.

[toll_booth]

Still not understanding why exactly the Clifton Corridor NIMBYs don't want heavy rail.

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by DirkMcGirt

There is no ROI on spending $1.2 billion to allow existing users more mobility. If you are going to drop $1.2 billion, there needs to be huge incremental growth to ridership. If this route doesn't provide new riders, the find an expansion that will. It is this 'non business' mindset that led MARTA into an abyss of red numbers. They start taking a business mindset and listening to the auditor's suggestions and suddenly MARTA is in the black. Don't go back to the old, foolish governmental way of thinking. Run MARTA like a business and make sound financial decisions. This isn't a hard concept.

Plus, MARTA predicted a total of 17,800 boardings daily (in 2030) on the 8.7 miles of rail. That is less than 2,000 boardings per mile of rail. MARTA rail averages about 4,800 riders per mile. Your incorrect assumptions are based on your incorrect math in your previous post. This is very simple math.

Well, your very simple math is wrong. You're confusing units with one another.

MARTA averages 232,100 riders per week. Divided by the route miles gives you 4879 riders per week per mile. The table on Wikipedia (which is cited from the American Public Transportation Association, gives its units as Average Weekly ridership for the Fourth Quarter, and then divides by the total miles to get the Rider per mile number.

The Clifton Corridor is looking at 17500 daily boardings, which is roughly 8900 riders per day. That's 61250 riders per week. Divided by the route miles gives you 7122 riders per week per mile.

(Note: that this is a bit off from my previous calcs, but only by ~20 riders per mile. That is due to rounding errors int the methods of calcs. Here I converted to days in the week as opposed to days in the year then to weeks in a year)

This is why I show all of my work, with all of the units outlined as I go.

As for ROI, not only is MARTA matching their system's numbers for riders per week per mile on new riders alone (the metric you seem so fixated on) but they are then going to surpass it by nearly twice the riders per week per mile. I see NO reason to restart the whole process of route studies (more millions of $s in design work and studies and surveys and meetings) when they have a route that, right now, will produce ample ridership.

If you are so concerned about the cost of the expansion vs. the ridership, then please, cite your sources, do some correct math, and we can talk rationally about this. Until then, it seems as if all that you are doing is trolling for upset supporters and spreading misinformation. If you're serious, then act like it.

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by fourthwarden

Well, your very simple math is wrong. You're confusing units with one another.

MARTA averages 232,100 riders per week. Divided by the route miles gives you 4879 riders per week per mile. The table on Wikipedia (which is cited from the American Public Transportation Association, gives its units as Average Weekly ridership for the Fourth Quarter, and then divides by the total miles to get the Rider per mile number.

The Clifton corridor is looking at 17500 daily boardings, which is roughly 8900 riders per day. That's 61250 riders per week. Divided by the route miles gives you 7122 riders per week per mile.

(Note: that this is a bit off from my previous calcs, but only by ~20 riders per mile. That is due to rounding errors int the methods of calcs. Here I converted to days in the week as opposed to days in the year then to weeks in a year)

This is why I sow all of my work, with all of the units outlined as I go.

As for ROI, not only is MARTA matching their system's numbers for riders per week per mile on new riders alone (the metric you seem so fixated on) but they are then going to surpass it by nearly twice the riders per week per mile. I see NO reason to restart the whole process of route studies (more millions of $s in design work and studies and surveys and meetings) when they have a route that, right now, will produce ample ridership.

If you are so concerned about the cost of the expansion vs. the ridership, then please, cite your sources, do some correct math, and we can talk rationally about this. Until then, it seems as if all that you are doing is trolling for upset supporters and spreading misinformation. If you're serious, then act like it.

Math hurts my brain.

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by cqholt

Math hurts my brain.

It's fine, I live and breath this stuff. In the first year of school, we learned the hard way that you always check your units. They will be the first things wrong if you've done a calculation incorrectly.

[MattCW]

Wrong fourthwarden, the 232,000 number is ridership per day