Keith Parker: MARTA’s rail system ideally would be double its size (Roswell: crime, sales tax)

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by AnsleyPark

I didn't use the word "friend" derogatorily. Please don't take it that way. Things are done differently all over the world. Your point is certainly valid there. Yes, there are more than one way to do most things. But, a complete user fee would certainly disenfranchise those who depend most on public transit - the poor who cannot afford other forms of transportation. And, it would probably cause the casual user to jump in their cars instead, thus defeating the purpose of public transit.

"buddy" was not intended to be harsh.

Funding transit by 100% user fees only works if we do it for roads too. As we see today. But casual users will reconsider "jumping into their cars" if they had to pay a toll for their use that was noticeably higher than a MARTA fare. Either way, let the people vote with the wallet.

I also agree about helping the poor, but forcing them away from jobs and to the suburbs with free roads and flat-fare transit is not the answer. A Basic Income is.

[toll_booth]

Originally Posted by AnsleyPark

I didn't use the word "friend" derogatorily. Please don't take it that way. Things are done differently all over the world. Your point is certainly valid there. Yes, there are more than one way to do most things. But, a complete user fee would certainly disenfranchise those who depend most on public transit - the poor who cannot afford other forms of transportation. And, it would probably cause the casual user to jump in their cars instead, thus defeating the purpose of public transit.

100% agreed. Good post.

[jsvh]

All I ask is you let people vote with their wallet. They choose highways then lets build more of those. But if they choose MARTA lets get these new lines going.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by neil0311

There's no winning with some of you.

If gasoline consumption is reduced and vehicle miles driven are reduced, then you have fewer $$$ added to the fund annually. If more people take mass transit, then you also get a reduction in funding. When you siphon off highway funding to transit projects (as has been done since the late 1970s), you have less $$$ for the intended purpose.

MARTA should build a line that goes out to Matt's house since he is being forced to commute 45 miles a day but not one to Neil's house since he doesn't need it.

I'll be okay if they will just replace the streetcar line to Buckhead that got torn out about 75 years ago.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by jsvh

I agree: Non-MARTA users should not be paying the MARTA sales tax (because transit should be funded 100% by users too).

From a logical standpoint that is true.

However, when the state of Georgia created MARTA it decided to give MARTA a much broader power and allow it to tax anybody who spent money in Fulton and DeKalb, whether they live there or not, and regardless of whether they get any MARTA service.

A lot of transit systems are stuck with a measly property tax that only applies to the areas they serve.

[jsvh]

Yes, it will be decades before we make the shift back to user funding. So we have to be realistic about today. Both highways and transit are competing for tax dollars. The state currently gives basically nothing to MARTA but funds our highways which encourages people to move further away from MARTA stations. So until we get back to more user fees based system, those that prefer transit should push to shift funding away from highways and towards transit. I am one of those people so I prefer my taxes to go that way until we are able to make the choice of how to spend our money directly.

[AnsleyPark]

You know, this state COULD have more money for infrastructure, but we've had politicians who are more concerned with Go Fish! programs and the like. It's all politics.... And sad....

[erick295]

If MARTA was funded by users there wouldn't be any users to fund it because it would cost too much to get on a train. No public resource should be funded that way. Can you imagine entrance fees for parks? Hourly rates for benches? Pay-per-mile sidewalks? The whole point of having public infrastructure is that everyone shares some the cost even if they don't use it. If someone doesn't like that philosophy then a city as big as Atlanta is the last place they should be. "Me-me-me" doesn't cut it when you share your environment with a lot of people, which is one of the reasons a lot of city dwellers lean left.

[tikigod311]

I know this is not an announcement, no grand plan has been announced, yet it seems grand in comparison to the attitude of MARTA we have known in the past. This guy is STELLAR. He's doing what he says needs to be done. He is acknowledging the organizations faults and setting realistic goals to remedy them.

MARTA really used to suck. Now, maybe that attitude stems from my relatively young age. But I have always perceived MARTA as an organization that got a grand initial investment and then mismanaged it to hell. It seemed like quality was never much of a goal. Seems like the overall attitude of MARTA has changed thanks to Mr Parker. His actions are slowly but surely proving this.

I guess I'm really not expecting much to come of this speech / article. Uhhhhh, funding? But its great to see talk of expansion rather than deficits.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by erick295

If MARTA was funded by users there wouldn't be any users to fund it because it would cost too much to get on a train. No public resource should be funded that way. Can you imagine entrance fees for parks? Hourly rates for benches? Pay-per-mile sidewalks? The whole point of having public infrastructure is that everyone shares some the cost even if they don't use it. If someone doesn't like that philosophy then a city as big as Atlanta is the last place they should be. "Me-me-me" doesn't cut it when you share your environment with a lot of people, which is one of the reasons a lot of city dwellers lean left.

Atlanta used to have dozens of private streetcar lines that cost a nickle (~$1.50 today) to ride. User funding is not right for everything. And I think local funds should still support things like neighborhood benches. But centrally planned communist economies demonstrate why you should not keep entire sectors of the economy bound as "public goods" if they don't have to be.