I think Marta doing Clayton County wrong (Savannah, East Point: apartments, rentals)
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.
"World class city" is the absolute stupidest reason to do rail. You do it because it makes transportation sense.
But MARTA should do better for Clayton County.
I dream big. I expect the city I live and invest in to do the same. If that makes me stupid, then I am stupid all the way to the bank.
Atlanta has always had big ambitions. It missed an opportunity to meet those ambitions fully when it neglected to build out a "world class" subway like DC when the federal government was offering help. It was the single biggest mistake in modern Atlanta history that has screwed the metro royally since. You can see the development happening around the heavy rail we do have for proof. I am glad the suburbs have changed political leanings. Maybe some s__t will get done now.
Last edited by AtlantaRising; 10-29-2021 at 04:28 PM..
I dream big. I expect the city I live and invest in to do the same. If that makes me stupid, then I am stupid all the way to the bank.
Atlanta has always had big ambitions. It missed an opportunity to meet those ambitions fully when it neglected to build out a "world class" subway like DC when the federal government was offering help.
I dream big. I expect the city I live and invest in to do the same. If that makes me stupid, then I am stupid all the way to the bank.
Atlanta has always had big ambitions. It missed an opportunity to meet those ambitions fully when it neglected to build out a "world class" subway like DC when the federal government was offering help. It was the single biggest mistake in modern Atlanta history that has screwed the metro royally since. You can see the development happening around the heavy rail we do have for proof. I am glad the suburbs have changed political leanings. Maybe some s__t will get done now.
Honest question as a non-Atlantan
Is it possible to expand MARTA so it is closer to DC’s transit system or no? Are there environmental reasons?
Is it possible to expand MARTA so it is closer to DC’s transit system or no? Are there environmental reasons?
The biggest reason is cost. It is way too expensive to expand HRT compared to 20+ years ago. That is why the newer systems in other cities have been building LRT lines, such as Seattle, Denver, Dallas, Houston, Charlotte, etc.
Most advanced transit systems were started in earlier years pre-car when transit was paid for through higher fares by the middle and upper classes. Fares and ridership was high and private companies would chase after the money.
Since then it occurs when the federal governments and local/regional governments agree to spend at the same time. The DC Metro and MARTA were paid for through a large surge in federal spending mixed with local spendings. Atlanta actually fared well and did more than other counterparts, like Baltimore and Miami during that same surge in federal funding. More recently, LRT systems typically compete better in federal funding formulas.
In the days when HRT was funded heavier DC got more, because federal spending put more into the federal district and local funding in 2 separate states only had to pay for smaller areas.
The other side to this is land-use within 1 mile of any planned route. This is actually a large reason, as it creates the demand, justifies the spending, but also increases the budget of local governments through additional sales tax revenue in an area and increasing the property tax digest. Matching transit with extensive neighborhood zoning is important.
Atlanta has a dense core and multiple nodes that make sense to connect, but it also has a great deal of low density urban neighborhoods around the core. Atlanta has shown a great deal or restraint and extreme historical protections of our lowest density spaces. A core problem is there isn't large amounts of ridership or money coming in at the local level to provide advance levels of service to many of these outlying urban neighborhoods. This is a large part why MARTA is getting quite aggressive with BRT upstarts. It is a better match to provide a level of advance service where high ridership exists, but it matches the level of density that has an impact on ridership from those neighborhoods.
This is also why we have put great emphasis on Transit oriented development around existing stations, but the problem is it is limited to redevelopment properties only within 1/4 mile and still seeks to maintain all single family zoning that is adjacent. Even then, the redevelopment properties have to scale down in density as they meet the single family zoning. This means redevelopment parcels often have to dedicate space to townhomes and smaller single family properties, to build the larger multi-family units. They aren't really creating whole urban neighborhoods that extend further.
DC's advantage is their outlying urban residential neighborhoods, outside of a few nodes found in Atlanta, are much denser. They have more multi-family housing on a bigger scale, and more row homes. They have neighborhoods that generate more riders, produce more fare revenue for more operations costs, and increase the sales and property tax digest inside the District. This also makes their redevelopment parcels able to become more dense, than they would in Atlanta as the scale down in density between redevelopment and existing homes is easier.
Their farebox recovery on rail is over 60% for a larger operation. Atlanta's is in the low 30% range. The more you can pay for operations by the immediate users, the more cash is available for expansion and subsidies for the parts of operations the farebox revenue can't cover.
So the problem we have is two-fold, too much of our existing funds is tied up funding operations costs of the existing system. If we had a farebox recovery ratio for rail surpassing 60%, we'd have more funds freed up from existing tax sources. The next problem is any new route, is likely to generate fewer riders than our old routes already connecting the densest nodes. This means new routes are likely to harm the existing farebox recovery ratio. This means when we plan new projects, we have to tie up more funds for operations over long periods. This is a large reason projects are expensive.
One of the biggest problems we have with the age-old highway vs. transit funding debate, is highways have relatively low operations costs, and generate an increasing amount in tax revenue to pay for them.
Transit can't cover its operations costs and additional tax revenue is limited and is often tied up to other purposes, like local schools.
So when you have a $500m budget for a highway, you might be paying capitol expenses on $350-$400m and paying the rest for maintenance over 10 years and financing. Possibly less, depending on how the local/state government handles financing. Pay as you go, is always cheaper. On top of that toll revenues and increases gas tax from increased driving helps fund that system from the cost.
In transit the same $500m budget can't go near as far. You have some of the same maintenance and financing costs the highway has that would knock the value down to $350-$400 over a 10 year period, but then you have added operations costs. More personnel, electricity, vehicle maintenance, etc... to add to that. Once you take into account paying 70% of operations cost over 10 years, your actual capitol budget might only be $150m. The higher the farebox recovery ratio on each new line/route, the less of a problem this is. The further problem is this route won't generate much more in the way of additional revenue once it is built and when it does it is in types of taxes dedicated to other uses, unlike the federal highway system.
A further complication are these new Toll lanes partially are paying for themselves from the toll revenue. They are paying for 30%-50% of their capitol/financing cost. It's another funding advantage transit can't achieve.
This is why $1 billion in highway spending can't be construed as a choice toward $1 billion in transit spending in terms of capitol cost alone.
All of these problems mashed together ends up meaning $1 billion on a highway project --capitol-- costs, might only $200-$350m in transit capitol costs, because the operation cost and revenue income structure is different.
These are the hurdles/realities we have to overcome/change before there would really an explosive growth.
Atlanta has a 1.5% sales tax and they are expanding MARTA in Atlanta, but even an added 0.5% can go so far to build much in the way of HRT.
Most advanced transit systems were started in earlier years pre-car when transit was paid for through higher fares by the middle and upper classes. Fares and ridership was high and private companies would chase after the money.
Since then it occurs when the federal governments and local/regional governments agree to spend at the same time. The DC Metro and MARTA were paid for through a large surge in federal spending mixed with local spendings. Atlanta actually fared well and did more than other counterparts, like Baltimore and Miami during that same surge in federal funding. More recently, LRT systems typically compete better in federal funding formulas.
In the days when HRT was funded heavier DC got more, because federal spending put more into the federal district and local funding in 2 separate states only had to pay for smaller areas.
The other side to this is land-use within 1 mile of any planned route. This is actually a large reason, as it creates the demand, justifies the spending, but also increases the budget of local governments through additional sales tax revenue in an area and increasing the property tax digest. Matching transit with extensive neighborhood zoning is important.
Atlanta has a dense core and multiple nodes that make sense to connect, but it also has a great deal of low density urban neighborhoods around the core. Atlanta has shown a great deal or restraint and extreme historical protections of our lowest density spaces. A core problem is there isn't large amounts of ridership or money coming in at the local level to provide advance levels of service to many of these outlying urban neighborhoods. This is a large part why MARTA is getting quite aggressive with BRT upstarts. It is a better match to provide a level of advance service where high ridership exists, but it matches the level of density that has an impact on ridership from those neighborhoods.
This is also why we have put great emphasis on Transit oriented development around existing stations, but the problem is it is limited to redevelopment properties only within 1/4 mile and still seeks to maintain all single family zoning that is adjacent. Even then, the redevelopment properties have to scale down in density as they meet the single family zoning. This means redevelopment parcels often have to dedicate space to townhomes and smaller single family properties, to build the larger multi-family units. They aren't really creating whole urban neighborhoods that extend further.
DC's advantage is their outlying urban residential neighborhoods, outside of a few nodes found in Atlanta, are much denser. They have more multi-family housing on a bigger scale, and more row homes. They have neighborhoods that generate more riders, produce more fare revenue for more operations costs, and increase the sales and property tax digest inside the District. This also makes their redevelopment parcels able to become more dense, than they would in Atlanta as the scale down in density between redevelopment and existing homes is easier.
Their farebox recovery on rail is over 60% for a larger operation. Atlanta's is in the low 30% range. The more you can pay for operations by the immediate users, the more cash is available for expansion and subsidies for the parts of operations the farebox revenue can't cover.
So the problem we have is two-fold, too much of our existing funds is tied up funding operations costs of the existing system. If we had a farebox recovery ratio for rail surpassing 60%, we'd have more funds freed up from existing tax sources. The next problem is any new route, is likely to generate fewer riders than our old routes already connecting the densest nodes. This means new routes are likely to harm the existing farebox recovery ratio. This means when we plan new projects, we have to tie up more funds for operations over long periods. This is a large reason projects are expensive.
One of the biggest problems we have with the age-old highway vs. transit funding debate, is highways have relatively low operations costs, and generate an increasing amount in tax revenue to pay for them.
Transit can't cover its operations costs and additional tax revenue is limited and is often tied up to other purposes, like local schools.
So when you have a $500m budget for a highway, you might be paying capitol expenses on $350-$400m and paying the rest for maintenance over 10 years and financing. Possibly less, depending on how the local/state government handles financing. Pay as you go, is always cheaper. On top of that toll revenues and increases gas tax from increased driving helps fund that system from the cost.
In transit the same $500m budget can't go near as far. You have some of the same maintenance and financing costs the highway has that would knock the value down to $350-$400 over a 10 year period, but then you have added operations costs. More personnel, electricity, vehicle maintenance, etc... to add to that. Once you take into account paying 70% of operations cost over 10 years, your actual capitol budget might only be $150m. The higher the farebox recovery ratio on each new line/route, the less of a problem this is. The further problem is this route won't generate much more in the way of additional revenue once it is built and when it does it is in types of taxes dedicated to other uses, unlike the federal highway system.
A further complication are these new Toll lanes partially are paying for themselves from the toll revenue. They are paying for 30%-50% of their capitol/financing cost. It's another funding advantage transit can't achieve.
This is why $1 billion in highway spending can't be construed as a choice toward $1 billion in transit spending in terms of capitol cost alone.
All of these problems mashed together ends up meaning $1 billion on a highway project --capitol-- costs, might only $200-$350m in transit capitol costs, because the operation cost and revenue income structure is different.
These are the hurdles/realities we have to overcome/change before there would really an explosive growth.
Atlanta has a 1.5% sales tax and they are expanding MARTA in Atlanta, but even an added 0.5% can go so far to build much in the way of HRT.
So, what is the solution for a better Future Metro Atlanta?
I dream big. I expect the city I live and invest in to do the same. If that makes me stupid, then I am stupid all the way to the bank.
Atlanta has always had big ambitions. It missed an opportunity to meet those ambitions fully when it neglected to build out a "world class" subway like DC when the federal government was offering help. It was the single biggest mistake in modern Atlanta history that has screwed the metro royally since. You can see the development happening around the heavy rail we do have for proof. I am glad the suburbs have changed political leanings. Maybe some s__t will get done now.
Why would you spend as much as $100 million a mile more for subway over what we have. Its actually nice having the view. BART isn't all subway, only in the core.
Why would you spend as much as $100 million a mile more for subway over what we have. Its actually nice having the view. BART isn't all subway, only in the core.
Because that's what was promised when we voted on the additional tax.
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.
