More MARTA money spent on bus operations

[Datdudebrah]

Originally Posted by atler8

You moved toward a focus on a major problem that MARTA faces in your sentence of, "Marta can't spend money on projects that aren't operations because none of those projects have started construction."

The thrust that line points to is the fact that Marta is hamstrung by the manner in which it was constituted at it's beginning by strictures put in place by the Georgia Legislature in the 1970's which included restrictions on how it's monies were to be spent. In other words, it does not have a free hand (or free enough hand) to decide how to spend the funding it receives.

That right there is a huge factor which reveals the necessity that Marta be restructured now because of ineffective clauses that do not work to it's betterment. That particular spending restriction was never a good one and it makes even less practical sense that it's still in place now after all of these decades later, especially given that we've had years to see how it actually hinders Marta.

It's past time to GET THE GEORGIA LEGISLATURE'S CONTROLLING (and interfering) HANDS OUT OF MARTA'S FINANCES AND IT'S OPERATIONS!

https://www.ajc.com/news/local/marta...zL42LiKQuxwTN/

https://saportareport.com/state-legi...maria_saporta/

I'm not necessarily disagreeing that something could change in the overall structure, but the 50/50 provision was removed a few years ago.

"Senators voted at around midnight Tuesday to permanently abolish the so-called “50/50 split” in the disposition of sales tax revenue the transit agency collects from the city of Atlanta and Fulton, DeKalb and Clayton counties. The restriction limits MARTA to spending no more than 50 percent of that revenue on operations. The other 50 percent must be put toward capital improvements."

https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/...-surprise.html

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by bu2

https://www.capitalfrontiers.com/sin...gest-Downtowns
Tied into the other link, this shows employment and the number of tall buildings (>12 stories in their definition)
#of tall buildings-in order, NY, Chicago, Los Angeles, Houston, DC, Philly, Honolulu, San Francisco, Miami, Boston, Dallas, Atlanta (12th).

I wonder how they are defining downtown? I don't think there are 317 tall buildings and 178,000 jobs in what we typically refer to as "downtown." That sounds more like a combination of Midtown and downtown.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by arjay57

I wonder how they are defining downtown? I don't think there are 317 tall buildings and 178,000 jobs in what we typically refer to as "downtown." That sounds more like a combination of Midtown and downtown.

No idea.

But "tall" is defined as greater than 12 stories.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by bu2

No idea.

But "tall" is defined as greater than 12 stories.

Right, but I don't think there are 317 buildings over 12 stories downtown.

Likewise with the employment numbers they are using. Sounds like they are combining Midtown and downtown.

[arjay57]

The Beltline Rail Now people are not happy.

WE VOTED FOR MORE MARTA, NOT LESS

https://beltlinerailnow.com/news/202...marta-not-less

[cranberrysaus]

Originally Posted by arjay57

The Beltline Rail Now people are not happy.

The funny thing about this piece is them using Campbellton Rd LRT as a negative example when I seem to recall Beltline Rail Now specifically lobbying to have their section of rail prioritized over Campbellton and Clifton Rd.

[JahshimR]

Originally Posted by arjay57

I wonder how they are defining downtown? I don't think there are 317 tall buildings and 178,000 jobs in what we typically refer to as "downtown." That sounds more like a combination of Midtown and downtown.

Quite possible. Personally, I never considered Atlanta big enough to have designations for "downtown" and a "midtown". would be amazing if the density of buildings were built up straight through to Buckhead's high rises. Then I'd say you could make the distinction.

In any event, I wonder if more Marta drivers means I can finally get a bus that comes more than once per hour. sheez

[SEAandATL]

Originally Posted by cranberrysaus

The funny thing about this piece is them using Campbellton Rd LRT as a negative example when I seem to recall Beltline Rail Now specifically lobbying to have their section of rail prioritized over Campbellton and Clifton Rd.

I was always against the idea for Campbellton Rd since it would have taken away from the Beltline loop, but now it looks like no one is getting LRT.

[primaltech]

I guess there's a lot of transit usage along Campbellton Rd, but it's so low density suburban, and not exactly ideal for transit. It doesn't even really look like it makes any sense for BRT, let alone LRT. But, of course, politics and all that.

Seems like that corridor would be ideal for regular old frequent bus service between Greenbriar Mall and Oakland City station, and then also a rapid, non-stop express bus service, between Greenbriar Mall and Lakewood station, along Langford Pkwy.

Camp Creek Pkwy looks to me more like the corridor in SW Atlanta that would be better for a true gold-standard BRT, between Fulton Industrial and the airport. Plenty of roadway space along there for barrier-separated dedicated bus lanes, and all the nice true BRT features:

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.6541...7i16384!8i8192

There's enough space to build there, that they could build something that could actually be as good as the BRT in Bogota. Same thing for S Fulton Pkwy too, there's a grassy median and plenty of room for widening and new bus lanes and such:

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.6187...7i16384!8i8192

Not this one-lane country road that is Campbellton Rd:

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7124...7i16384!8i8192