Atlanta’s relationship with the automobile is reaching a crossroads. (Forsyth: taxation, vs)

[LTCM]

They'll have to rip my keys from my dead fingers.

Ain't nothing ever going to make me give up the freedom to go anywhere at any time in my own a/c conditioned space.

[jsvh]

Great. Keep driving.

Honestly, we don't need to expand MARTA anywhere that doesn't want to pay the cost of transit. If you want to pay to sit in your car instead of paying to sit on the train, go right ahead. It is no skin off my back.

[Need4Camaro]

Originally Posted by jsvh

Great. Keep driving.

Honestly, we don't need to expand MARTA anywhere that doesn't want to pay the cost of transit. If you want to pay to sit in your car instead of paying to sit on the train, go right ahead. It is no skin off my back.

Are you sure you want to stick to that? A few posts back you noted you didn't want to pay $2.50 to use MARTA for short trips but now you're perfectly okay with gouging the price?

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by Need4Camaro

Are you sure you want to stick to that? A few posts back you noted you didn't want to pay $2.50 to use MARTA for short trips but now you're perfectly okay with gouging the price?

I am talking about paying the price reflective of the real costs, not the subsidy. The true per-rider costs of taking MARTA from North Springs to the Airport is not the same as taking it from Five Points to Midtown. Nor are you paying the real costs of driving on the freeway through the city.

Bet you can't even tell me how much you are paying to use the road on a five mile trip through the city.

I am saying costs need to be directly linked to use. If you are fine with that price, great. Use it all you want.

[ddm2k]

Originally Posted by jsvh

I am talking about paying the price reflective of the real costs, not the subsidy. The true per-rider costs of taking MARTA from North Springs to the Airport is not the same as taking it from Five Points to Midtown. Nor are you paying the real costs of driving on the freeway through the city.

Bet you can't even tell me how much you are paying to use the road on a five mile trip through the city.

I am saying costs need to be directly linked to use. If you are fine with that price, great. Use it all you want.

Two things factor into seemingly inappropriate prices:

1. Big difference between how a publicly funded or subsidized entity prices their fares vs. what a private entity would. Also endless differences in formulas one could use to calculate "true" cost of a trip.

2. There is likely some base fare, minimum, or "floor" for even the shortest trip. Similar to power companies billing a basic monthly fee of $15 then adding your actual usage on top of that. Water companies, too. Or taxis with a higher first-mile charge.

With big city accounting, the MARTA line is one thing, but there's not a formula to calculate how much you pay to "use the road" in a private auto. All taxes and registration fees that fund DOT clear you for ACCESS to operate your vehicle on public roads, and provide the city with INCOME to fund a maintenance BUDGET. This is why there's a "disconnect" between the taxes you pay and the anecdotal perception of not getting what you pay for in taxes.

You'll always pay the city, but the city will hem and haw over road repairs. They can appear more interested in building new roads than fixing existing problems.

[Need4Camaro]

Originally Posted by jsvh

I am talking about paying the price reflective of the real costs, not the subsidy. The true per-rider costs of taking MARTA from North Springs to the Airport is not the same as taking it from Five Points to Midtown. Nor are you paying the real costs of driving on the freeway through the city.

Bet you can't even tell me how much you are paying to use the road on a five mile trip through the city.

I am saying costs need to be directly linked to use. If you are fine with that price, great. Use it all you want.

The cost of taking the freeway or even driving a five mile trip through the city is a shared cost among everyone who is paying for fuel...The combined sum in a sense acts as a subsidy to maintain that road. I cannot calculate specifically how much just 1 trip cost...although in the grand scheme probably negligible in comparison to the cost of maintaining that same road if MANY more used that same stretch. So in the grand scheme road wear and road maintenance is and always will be a shared effort in BOTH regards (the wear the road receives, and the maintenance that is paid to upkeep it.) regardless if its charged by gasoline, or tolls... One individual vehicle is not going to do a great deal of wear on a highway, its the masses that constantly use it every day that causes eventual degradation of the street.

Mass Transit is a bit different in this scheme. It costs the same to maintain a train and its rail, regardless of how many or how few people use it. The train and railroad incurs the same wear traveling down the tracks empty as it does full..If there were no subsidy, and less people used it, then the people who DID continue to use it would absolutely have to pay MORE than what the ride was worth in effort to upkeep the system.

[samiwas1]

Originally Posted by jsvh

No one can really tell you how it costs for a 20 mile drive down a highway because we have hidden and subsidized basically in its entirety.

Uhhh...can you tell the real cost of any transportation method? What is the true cost of a bus ride? What is the true cost of a train ride? What is the true cost of a plane ride? What is the true cost of a walk down the Beltline? What is the true cost of biking down a cycle track? What is the true cost of the Uber you last took? The cost you pay (or don't pay at all in the case of bike lanes and sidewalks) is not the true cost of anything. So, why are you obsessing over just the highway costs?

I am advocating that the true costs are better reflected in both transit and cars and let the people make the choice that way. If driving is still the most cost effective method for you after that, then good for you. I have no problem with that. On the flip side having to pay tolls for the real costs of highways might give him some perspective on how good a deal a $10 MARTA ride really is.

How do you respond to my earlier link from the GDOT stating that 90% of their funding is through fuel tax? Seems like we are paying near full cost. When all these tolls take effect, does the fuel tax then go away, or are you planning on hitting drivers twice out of spite?

Originally Posted by jsvh

I am talking about paying the price reflective of the real costs, not the subsidy. The true per-rider costs of taking MARTA from North Springs to the Airport is not the same as taking it from Five Points to Midtown.

Are you really prepared to pay the full cost of transit? According to MARTA's 2016 Budget Book, MARTA's total operating expenditures were $917.7 Million (Page 21). Passenger revenue was $143.7 Million (Page 21). That's a total of about 15.7%. So, to pay the true costs of MARTA operation, passengers would need to pay on average more than six times as much as they currently do. I don't think you, nor anyone here (including myself), would ever advocate for that.

Bet you can't even tell me how much you are paying to use the road on a five mile trip through the city.

Bet you can't tell me how much any transportation method actually costs.

I am saying costs need to be directly linked to use. If you are fine with that price, great. Use it all you want.

No, I don't think you actually want that.

[J2rescue]

I altered this graphic to illustrate what this topic is really all about.

[J2rescue]

Originally Posted by samiwas1

Are you really prepared to pay the full cost of transit? According to MARTA's 2016 Budget Book, MARTA's total operating expenditures were $917.7 Million (Page 21). Passenger revenue was $143.7 Million (Page 21). That's a total of about 15.7%. So, to pay the true costs of MARTA operation, passengers would need to pay on average more than six times as much as they currently do. I don't think you, nor anyone here (including myself), would ever advocate for that.

You keep misstating Marta's combined expenditures as operating expenditures. Operating expenditures were $448 million. In fact passenger revenue must cover at least 35% of operating costs per the Marta act.

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by j2rescue

i altered this graphic to illustrate what this topic is really all about.

+1