Cobb leaders are calling transit connectivity imperative (Atlanta, Sandy Springs: bankrupt, vs.)

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by primaltech

The great thing about GRTA is that it actually serves the whole metro area. It serves 13 counties: Cherokee, Clayton, Coweta, Cobb, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry, Paulding, and Rockdale.

So if MARTA (and CCT and GCT) were merged/consolidated into GRTA and everything simply became GRTA, that would be like if 10 counties suddenly joined MARTA. All in exchange for just maybe a name change for MARTA? Seems worth it to me.

The assets, resources, experience, people from MARTA would all still be there.

No just a name, but giving up local-appointed leadership to governor-appointed leadership.

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by primaltech

The great thing about GRTA is that it actually serves the whole metro area. It serves 13 counties: Cherokee, Clayton, Coweta, Cobb, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry, Paulding, and Rockdale.

Only superficially. Don't get me wrong, commuter buses are great and all, but they are just about the most minimal level of service an area can receive.

So if MARTA (and CCT and GCT) were merged/consolidated into GRTA and everything simply became GRTA, that would be like if 10 counties suddenly joined MARTA. All in exchange for just maybe a name change for MARTA? Seems worth it to me.

Well, plus the loss of local control, and an unclear condition about the state of funding or its direction.

The assets, resources, experience, people from MARTA would all still be there.

That's a pretty big assumption, given the general state dislike of city politics and its representatives. I do not trust an absorption of MARTA into anyone to maintain institutional experience or representative integrity.

We don't need an agency like MARTA in the full 13 counties anyway. Gut the core 5, with an option for others to join as they want.

I have no qualms with giving GRTA more operational range, but we need at most, two agencies handling the separate needs of the separate build environments of the region.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by fourthwarden

Only superficially. Don't get me wrong, commuter buses are great and all, but they are just about the most minimal level of service an area can receive.



Well, plus the loss of local control, and an unclear condition about the state of funding or its direction.



That's a pretty big assumption, given the general state dislike of city politics and its representatives. I do not trust an absorption of MARTA into anyone to maintain institutional experience or representative integrity.

We don't need an agency like MARTA in the full 13 counties anyway. Gut the core 5, with an option for others to join as they want.

I have no qualms with giving GRTA more operational range, but we need at most, two agencies handling the separate needs of the separate build environments of the region.

I agree. Outside the core 5, those counties really have different needs.

[primaltech]

Agreed, but that doesn't absolutely mean there needs to be 2 separate agencies. MBTA in Massachusetts does all the transit within a huge geographic area, it does urban subway type stuff in Boston proper, and commuter rail in the way far out areas.

I don't see why we couldn't have a similar solution here, and also why we couldn't have different funding levels as appropriate per county. For example, City of Atlanta, Fulton, and DeKalb pay 1.5% sales tax, and they get the most and best transit, as being the most urban areas, closest to the core. They get almost all the heavy rail, which is the most expensive.

Then Clayton, Cobb, Gwinnett would pay 1%, and they'd get the mid tier of transit, maybe only one or two heavy rail stations, with a focus on frequent commuter rail and good bus service.

Then all the other counties would pay a half penny and just receive commuter rail and express bus only.

What's the problem with that? Seems to me that one single unified transit agency/system/service area would solve so much of the balkanization issues and such.

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by primaltech

Agreed, but that doesn't absolutely mean there needs to be 2 separate agencies. MBTA in Massachusetts does all the transit within a huge geographic area, it does urban subway type stuff in Boston proper, and commuter rail in the way far out areas.

I don't see why we couldn't have a similar solution here, and also why we couldn't have different funding levels as appropriate per county. For example, City of Atlanta, Fulton, and DeKalb pay 1.5% sales tax, and they get the most and best transit, as being the most urban areas, closest to the core. They get almost all the heavy rail, which is the most expensive.

Then Clayton, Cobb, Gwinnett would pay 1%, and they'd get the mid tier of transit, maybe only one or two heavy rail stations, with a focus on frequent commuter rail and good bus service.

Then all the other counties would pay a half penny and just receive commuter rail and express bus only.

What's the problem with that? Seems to me that one single unified transit agency/system/service area would solve so much of the balkanization issues and such.

MBTA is entirely run by the state of Massachusetts, with its governing boards being either MDOT or Governor Appointees.

Massachusetts itself is only ~2000 square miles larger than the Atlanta metro statistical area, and only ~500 square miles larger than the combined statistical area.

Maybe if the state of Georgia was was the size of the Atlanta MSA or CSA, I would trust them to more have the metro's and city's interests in mind when controlling an agency serving it. Given the wide extent of the state outside of the metro, with much of the political power weighing in favor of non, or even anti, Atlanta interests, I am not confident at all.

If the state of Georgia was smaller, then I could see a more reasonable balance between political control. It's not, though, and I do not trust the state to keep Atlanta's interests in mind when controlling its transit agency, of all things.

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by primaltech

Agreed, but that doesn't absolutely mean there needs to be 2 separate agencies. MBTA in Massachusetts does all the transit within a huge geographic area, it does urban subway type stuff in Boston proper, and commuter rail in the way far out areas.

I don't see why we couldn't have a similar solution here, and also why we couldn't have different funding levels as appropriate per county. For example, City of Atlanta, Fulton, and DeKalb pay 1.5% sales tax, and they get the most and best transit, as being the most urban areas, closest to the core. They get almost all the heavy rail, which is the most expensive.

Then Clayton, Cobb, Gwinnett would pay 1%, and they'd get the mid tier of transit, maybe only one or two heavy rail stations, with a focus on frequent commuter rail and good bus service.

Then all the other counties would pay a half penny and just receive commuter rail and express bus only.

What's the problem with that? Seems to me that one single unified transit agency/system/service area would solve so much of the balkanization issues and such.

Comparing MARTA to CTA, METRA and Pace is more accurate, where RTA is the umbrella agency over 3 transit agencies.. IL is a state, similar to GA, with 1 large metro dominating the economy, growth, etc.

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by cqholt

Comparing MARTA to CTA, METRA and Pace is more accurate, where RTA is the umbrella agency over 3 transit agencies.. IL is a state, similar to GA, with 1 large metro dominating the economy, growth, etc.

The levels should then be MARTA, GRTA, and GDOT, with SRTA being the, well I don't think it should be an umbrella agency, but a mediating and data consolidation agency would be quite useful.

[primaltech]

Ultimately I'm fine with whatever involves CCT not existing anymore. Mainly I'm just afraid that even after this "regional transit committee" thing is done, Cobb is still going to have its own transit system. Which would negate the entire point of the thing.

Whether it's one or two agencies, we only need metro-wide agencies, centered on Atlanta itself and extending outwards- no agencies that only serve one county. And really, Cobb and Fulton and DeKalb and Gwinnett and Clayton need to be in one unified system. I don't care what it's called, or who is appointed by whom, or any of those details. Whatever it takes to make that happen, is fine.

But, if MARTA is still seen as a non-starter for whatever stupid reasons, I'm fine with the less-controversial GRTA replacing MARTA as its successor. And then funding means and funding levels being figured out on a per-county basis from there. But it would really unify the region, and it would eliminate the need for any counties to join anything, as they are all already members of GRTA.

Would be great if the discussion was purely about funding, as it should be. Instead it's just trying to get a metro transit agency to freakin' exist. I swear, other cities are just laughing at us.

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by primaltech

Ultimately I'm fine with whatever involves CCT not existing anymore. Mainly I'm just afraid that even after this "regional transit committee" thing is done, Cobb is still going to have its own transit system. Which would negate the entire point of the thing.

Whether it's one or two agencies, we only need metro-wide agencies, centered on Atlanta itself and extending outwards- no agencies that only serve one county. And really, Cobb and Fulton and DeKalb and Gwinnett and Clayton need to be in one unified system. I don't care what it's called, or who is appointed by whom, or any of those details. Whatever it takes to make that happen, is fine.

But, if MARTA is still seen as a non-starter for whatever stupid reasons, I'm fine with the less-controversial GRTA replacing MARTA as its successor. And then funding means and funding levels being figured out on a per-county basis from there. But it would really unify the region, and it would eliminate the need for any counties to join anything, as they are all already members of GRTA.

Would be great if the discussion was purely about funding, as it should be. Instead it's just trying to get a metro transit agency to freakin' exist. I swear, other cities are just laughing at us.

You should care how leadership is appointed, don't toss the baby out with the bathwater just to get transit. You want Bubba's from rural counties, who know nothing about transit or large metro issues deciding who is on the board?

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by cqholt

You should care how leadership is appointed, don't toss the baby out with the bathwater just to get transit. You want Bubba's from rural counties, who know nothing about transit or large metro issues deciding who is on the board?

I have to agree. Can you imagine the reaction of a bunch of anti-transit types to something like the Erves scandal? We'd never hear the last of it.