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.
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.
Very popular argument against mass transit. Of course, since roads are PUBLIC FUNDED, you're imposing your demands for a benefit upon those who pay but do not use them. Or abuse them.
If you had to pay FULL PRICE to use those roads, your freedom would not be impaired, but your capability to afford that freedom might be threatened.
I think it might be time to transfer all private rail rights of way to a non-government organization (NGO) not subject to taxation. Then all common carriers -and- private rail users can access them.
Imagine the hybrid railroad-ready cars, buses and trucks that could get on track, tap into the electrical grid (saving batteries), and zip along at high speed, minimal rolling resistance, and still have the option to leave track for convenience.
I altered this graphic to illustrate what this topic is really all about.
Cool graphic. But I just don't see it happening here. it's a struggle to get things done in other parts of the country that are more friendly towards mass transit.
Seems like folks move to Atlanta to get away from all that mass transit, taxes, bike lanes.
And in theory I like it, I am not against it. But the reality of living here has tempered my expectations of progress.
N4C, If driving really is the cheaper way for people to get to / from the airport then great.
I can see the argument for wanting to subsidize transit since it is more environmentally friendly, healthier, and gets people off the road. We certainly need to adjust the way we price highways. 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.
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. I really don't think $10 fare vs $2.50 fare is going to make that Forsyth business traveller decide between MARTA to the airport or not. But that extra revenue being enough to cover increase train frequency or additional police certainly might. 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.
One thing we should take into account in figuring the true cost of transportation is that the Little Man already pays $300-400 a year (and possibly considerably more) directly to MARTA whether he uses it or not.
Granted, that's only 8 or 10 tanks of gas and the MARTA fare is on top of that. But if you're paying for it, why not use it?
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.
I will refer you to the source I posted. MARTA’s chart lists the total on a line labeled “Total Operating Expenditures” which includes all operating and capital costs. The “true cost of a ride” needs to include all costs, not just selected costs. I don’t care if passenger revenue covers 35% of operating costs. There are many more costs which it doesn’t touch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
Very popular argument against mass transit. Of course, since roads are PUBLIC FUNDED, you're imposing your demands for a benefit upon those who pay but do not use them. Or abuse them.
If you had to pay FULL PRICE to use those roads, your freedom would not be impaired, but your capability to afford that freedom might be threatened.
Ummm...people who don’t drive pay only a portion of property tax towards some roads. I pay towards transit with literally every dollar I spend in town, even though I rarely use it. Several hundred dollars worth such year. How are road costs being imposed so much on those who don’t use them (even though they get mail, have packages delivered, have pizza delivered, need emergency access, etc), but not so for transit?
We have been through this argument a hundred time.
Transit will not only survive but thrive on a level playing field where everybody has to directly pay the full costs of their transportation choices.
I am fine scrapping subsidies and directly paying for transit IF results in the same for roads.
Drivers, you need to get used to picking up a lot more of the costs of the expensive road network you are using. At least much, much higher gas taxes but more likely needs to be electronic tolling on major highways & roads.
I can understand the argument for keeping some subsidy for transit since it is more accessible, equitable, safer, efficient, leads to better urban design, and more environmentally friendly. But either way, we need to keep ratcheting down subsidies for automobiles. That is not a behavior we need to encourage.
We have been through this argument a hundred time.
Transit will not only survive but thrive on a level playing field where everybody has to directly pay the full costs of their transportation choices.
I am fine scrapping subsidies and directly paying for transit IF results in the same for roads.
Drivers, you need to get used to picking up a lot more of the costs of the expensive road network you are using. At least much, much higher gas taxes but more likely needs to be electronic tolling on major highways & roads.
I can understand the argument for keeping some subsidy for transit since it is more accessible, equitable, safer, efficient, leads to better urban design, and more environmentally friendly. But either way, we need to keep ratcheting down subsidies for automobiles. That is not a behavior we need to encourage.
You are operating on false assumptions. Subsidies for transit are vastly higher on a per ride basis. Until the last 10 years or so, the gas tax and tolls DID pay for highways and more-it paid for all federal transit grants and all sorts of other things not directly related to transportation. We should raise the gas tax. But only use it for roads, not for transit. Transit should be a separate appropriation. And note that buses are transit and do use roads.
I do think businesses in metro areas should get rid of subsidized parking. That is a subsidy that hides the true cost of driving and gives cars an advantage over transit.
Cool graphic. But I just don't see it happening here. it's a struggle to get things done in other parts of the country that are more friendly towards mass transit.
Seems like folks move to Atlanta to get away from all that mass transit, taxes, bike lanes.
And in theory I like it, I am not against it. But the reality of living here has tempered my expectations of progress.
I also like that graphic. My question is whether folks in the ATL are ready for the Copenhagen lifestyle. I love the convenience of being able to walk out the door and fire up my personal transportation pod.
Very popular argument against mass transit. Of course, since roads are PUBLIC FUNDED, you're imposing your demands for a benefit upon those who pay but do not use them. Or abuse them.
If you had to pay FULL PRICE to use those roads, your freedom would not be impaired, but your capability to afford that freedom might be threatened.
Only issue is... You DO use them. Regardless of whether you drive or not is irrelevant. Your tax going toward the roads is just as justified as the tax a driver pays. A driver pays an additional advolerum and registration as well as fuel tax where as you do not (if you don't drive.) However as a consumer you depend on those roads to allow your goods to be delivered (both to your address and your local store). If an emergency happens and a fire truck has to show up at your house... He ain't taking a MARTA rail to get there. Likewise...when you get on a bus...your bus navigates down what to get to your stop or rail station? What does it use? ... MARTA isn't paying for the roads to get goods delivered both your home and other businesses including the one of which you may work at... Your property tax toward roads is perfectly justified. You just live in this air balloon where as you think just because you take transit that magically you're exempt for the rest of reality... You're just as dependent on them as a automotive commuter...thus...you pay for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arjay57
One thing we should take into account in figuring the true cost of transportation is that the Little Man already pays $300-400 a year (and possibly considerably more) directly to MARTA whether he uses it or not.
Granted, that's only 8 or 10 tanks of gas and the MARTA fare is on top of that. But if you're paying for it, why not use it?
Generally because it doesn't go anywhere near my house or job...and in the seldom occasions it does...it puts me in the super commuter category (commute longer than an hour and a half.)
Last edited by Need4Camaro; 06-24-2018 at 02:16 PM..
Only issue is... You DO use them. Regardless of whether you drive or not is irrelevant. Your tax going toward the roads is just as justified as the tax a driver pays. A driver pays an additional advolerum and registration as well as fuel tax where as you do not (if you don't drive.) However as a consumer you depend on those roads to allow your goods to be delivered (both to your address and your local store). If an emergency happens and a fire truck has to show up at your house... He ain't taking a MARTA rail to get there. Likewise...when you get on a bus...your bus navigates down what to get to your stop or rail station? What does it use? ... MARTA isn't paying for the roads to get goods delivered both your home and other businesses including the one of which you may work at... Your property tax toward roads is perfectly justified. You just live in this air balloon where as you think just because you take transit that magically you're exempt for the rest of reality... You're just as dependent on them as a automotive commuter...thus...you pay for them.
1) Compelled benefits are not benefits.
2) Fuel taxes do not cover the costs entirely. Nor do they approach the secondary costs - the increased fuel consumption, health issues, parking lot sprawl, air pollution, traffic injuries and deaths, insurance, etc, etc.
3) Before the progressives "took over" the infrastructure it was privately owned and operated for the most part. So, no, you didn't have to pay for the roads that others used. Or the bridges. Or the ferries. Or the turnpikes.
4) Arguing that rail means the abolition of all other forms of transit is absurd. But a 80% decline in auto traffic would free up highway lanes.
5) Prior to the automobile / petroleum / pavement hegemony, there were such things as Railway Express Agency, that delivered packages shipped by rail... to your door. (May have been horse drawn wagon or a truck)
6) Your arguments are derived from a reference that is limited in duration, as much as it is skewed by the A/P/P hegemony. Prior to the decline of rail, most urban and suburban homes were within 1/4 mile of a streetcar or rail stop... a 10 to 20 minute walk.
7) In 50 years, barring a technological breakthrough, the most prevalent form of land transportation will be electric traction rail, for the simple reason that nothing else can compete. Rail based transit will move the most passengers and cargo for the least cost in fuel, in surface area, and in relative safety. And as long as populations keep rising, there is no other mode of transportation that can effectively scale with that growth.
8) Looking backward, to the years of the "Energy Crisis" (1970s), imagine how things might have differed if America had returned to electric traction rail for 75% - 85% of our transit. Our petroleum consumption would be less than our domestic production. No entanglements with the Oil producers. No Oil Wars. No Terrorist threats. No suburban sprawl. No abandoned city cores. No smog. No imbalance in foreign trade.
And consider how that frugality might affect our prosperity - fewer lost manufacturing and production jobs . . .
KILLER KARS
According to a new report by the National Safety Council. The NSC estimates there were 40,100 motor vehicle deaths last year [2017]... https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-say/82613144/
But only a single-digit number of rail passengers died in all but five of the years from 1990 through 2012.
When will the carnage stop! [/sarcasm]
Last edited by jetgraphics; 06-24-2018 at 03:24 PM..
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.
