A quick review of the real estate data for North Fulton County shows that there are currently 2020 single family homes listed on the multiple listing service for this area. In the month of September 211 homes went under contract so there is about a nine and a half month supply of homes currently on the market. Roughly 25% of the homes that went under contract are distressed sales, bank owned foreclosures or short sales.
In responding to one of my earlier posts (https://gajim.wordpress.com/2010/02/25/marta-vs-roads-and-privately-operated-transit/ ) a commenter has pointed out that according to the Georgia Department of Transportation budget the DOT will only receive $688 million dollars from the motor fuel tax and that would only be 26% of the total DOT budget.
The commenter’s numbers were taken from this document published by the Georgia DOT: http://bit.ly/b3GBKh I did not rely on that document for my numbers so the explanation below should clear up this understandable confusion.
The numbers used in my post came directly from the state of Georgia’s published 2010 budget numbers available online here: http://bit.ly/cIkk8c
The state projects on page 5 of the budget that motor fuel tax revenues will be $894,250,037. The state also projects motor vehicle tax revenues of $298,968,200. These vehicle user fees combine for more than 1.2 billion dollars. It is true that the DOT only receives $688 million of the vehicle user taxes but that is because the state spends the rest elsewhere.
The Georgia DOT has a total budget of 2.6 billion dollars because they administer 1.9 billion dollars for the federal government as shown on page 2 of the GDOT document noted above. Ostensibly the federal dollars come from the money collected by the federal government every time a Georgia driver puts gas in their car and are then returned to the state.
To summarize, the state of Georgia budget document clearly shows that the state takes in 1.2 billion dollars from motor vehicle users and only spends $688 million dollars of state revenue on the entire department of transportation. I hope this clears up any confusion.
This is another chapter in my continuing response to commenter Paul. In this chapter I will try to sort through the following paragraph to make some sense of the claims and arguments and then answer them to the best of my ability.
“You say MARTA is “a government subsidized pseudo-monopoly.” Again, I refer back to the absolutely massive amounts that are spent on roads. Yes, roads are used for transport of food and goods, but so is rail. The amount spent on public transit in this country is absolutely nothing when compared to the amount spent on roads. Your statement that private sector companies would step in if there wasn’t a governement “subsidized” transit system has shown to be false over and over again. Look at cities without rail transit – where are the private lines? Why hasn’t some private developer built transit lines where there is no government competition? In fact, there is only one place in the entire country where that has happend – the “South Shore Line” in Northern Indiana/Illinois, and even that recently had to receive government money to stay afloat. Long gone are the days of private streetcars.”
Commenter: “Again, I refer back to the absolutely massive amounts that are spent on roads. Yes, roads are used for transport of food and goods, but so is rail”
Response: Surely you jest. As I pointed out before roads are the lifeblood of our entire society. To compare roads to public transportation is patently absurd and it shows that you are grasping at straws. “Massive amounts” are spent on roads because everything you need to survive is dependent on functioning roads. Roads are not an option they are a necessity. Public transportation would not exist if not for the roads that buses and cars use to reach the train station. Railroads do transport goods but they don’t deliver them to stores and unless MARTA has started a freight service it is just silly for you to bring up railroads in a discussion of public transportation. Also, roads are paid for by user taxes. Every gallon of gasoline sold in Georgia costs 50 cents more because of federal, state and local taxes.
Commenter: “Your statement that private sector companies would step in if there wasn’t a governement “subsidized” transit system has shown to be false over and over again. Look at cities without rail transit – where are the private lines?”
Response: I never said anything about private rail. I said private transit system. That private system would probably be composed of buses, cabs and other options just like it is in the vast majority of cities around the world. Doesn’t it seem odd to anyone else that there are only a handful of cities in the United States that even have commuter trains and those are the cities with the worst traffic. Perhaps the billions of dollars used to subsidize MARTA over the years could have served a better purpose and Atlanta wouldn’t face the traffic problems we see today.
Commenter: “I also have to re-stress the equity issue. In your response, you stated that you don’t want to “subsidize [my] choice” to take MARTA. What about the people who have to take MARTA? The poor, the elderly, those that can’t drive for whatever reason (legally blind, narcolepsy, DUIs, etc). Our nation has an obligation to provide them with a way to to get to the store, to work, to medical appointments. Yes, the road system works for most people, and I am happy that our taxes pay for roads. But it doesn’t work for everybody, and that is why public transit is needed.
Here’s an article from the American Planning Association showing how public transit, specifically MARTA, is needed to promote equity and availability of jobs, and has economic benefits because of this: http://www.nvc.vt.edu/uap/docs/TSpubs/sanchez_connectionpublictransitemployment.pdf ”
Response: So now your defense of MARTA is “equity”? What do you mean by equity? The dictionary defines equity as “the quality of being fair or impartial”. How is MARTA fair?
You are apparently a healthy, gainfully employed person that makes the choice to take MARTA because subsidies from taxpayers like myself make it artificially cost efficient for you. According to MARTA you only pay 27% of the cost of your commute. Based on a $2.00 fare that means the actual cost of your trip would be $7.41 each way. If the goal is “equity” then MARTA should charge people that aren’t disabled or disadvantaged the full $7.41 and use the money to provide better service free of charge to people that are less fortunate. We can agree or disagree whether that is a good idea but I don’t see how anyone could say it is less equitable.
You also claim that a report justifies “how public transit, specifically MARTA, is needed to promote equity and availability of jobs, and has economic benefits because of this”. I have thoroughly reviewed the report you identify and there is absolutely no evidence to support your claim in there. In fact the report clearly states on page 3:”Despite the lack of evidence, public transit system enhancements continue to be recommended to help solve central city unemployment problems” (emphasis mine). The report you refer to also says,”Certainly the study results do not indicate a causal relationship between increased access to public transit and increased labor participation.”
As I have stated before, governments and their dependent agencies are inefficient delivery systems. Even if the goal of MARTA were to promote equity and create jobs it is not an effective way of doing so.
This post is a response to a commenter on my earlier post, Public transportation, solution or problem? You can see the original post and the comment in its entirety here: https://gajim.wordpress.com/2010/02/18/public-transportation-solution-or-problem/
Commenter: “As far as tax payer subsidies, who do you think pays for the roads you drive on? Billions and billions of dollars are spent on road infrastructure, and you’re not complaining about that. The 14th st bridge project alone cost over $100,000,000… just for the fixing of one bridge over the highway.”
Response: Thank you for raising this point. Proponents of MARTA often try to equate the cost of public transportation with the cost of building roads but let me be clear, the two things are completely different and to compare them shows a lack of objectivity.
We all pay for roads because they are a basic component required for our society to function. Every human in the United States depends on a roadway system. A woman can walk to the grocery store but the food gets there on a truck. A man may not have a job but his unemployment check was delivered on a road. A person might take MARTA to Starbucks but there wouldn’t be any coffee without roads. Comparing roads to MARTA is like comparing water to arugula.
I agree with your assertion that road construction is often too costly but that simply illustrates the point I made earlier. Governments and their dependent agencies are inefficient delivery systems and should be tasked with the fewest responsibilities possible.
Commenter: “In addition, study after study by the CDC and Universites have shown the benefits of public transit. Atlanta has a high obesity rate and one of the highest asthma rates in the country, all of which are are tied to the automobile lifestyle. In fact, we have previously lost Federal highway funding because our air quality was so bad that it violated EPA standards.”
Response: It is easy for a person to claim validity by citing “study after study” but it is impossible to determine the veracity of the claim or the study without a specific attribution. I would like to point out that the CDC and the EPA are not independent, objective organizations. Both the CDC and EPA depend on federal funding for their livelihood and as such are political instruments.
That concludes my response to commenter Paul. I am glad that he took the time to comment because this is an important issue to the future our state. In the next few years Georgia is going to face increasingly difficult budgetary decisions and we will all have to make some tough choices. If you have anything to add to what Paul and I have written please feel free to leave a comment but play nice or it may not see the light of day.
This post is a response to a commenter on my earlier post, Public transportation, solution or problem? You can see the original post and the comment in its entirety here: https://gajim.wordpress.com/2010/02/18/public-transportation-solution-or-problem/
Commenter: “MARTA’s hands are tied by the state.”
Response: Thank you for helping to make my point. Governments and their dependent agencies are inefficient delivery systems. It is unreasonable for a person to expect a governmental agency to provide any service as effectively as a private sector business. Public sector inefficiency is one reason our founding fathers tried to limit the federal government to a few, clearly defined responsiblities such as the building of roads which is clearly stated in Article 1 of the United States Constitution.
Commenter: “I personally do not own a car, and use MARTA to get to work.”
Response: I respect your choice to use MARTA. I just don’t like taking money from my family to subsidize your choice. I choose to own my own car and could not sell real estate without that car. Should you be required to pay an additional 1% sales tax to subsidize my car payment?
Commenter: “If MARTA did not exist, I would not be able to continue working, and would lose my job.”
Response: If MARTA doesn’t exist you would just quit going to work and get fired? You would not consider moving closer to work or taking a cab? You would stop working to support yourself (and your family if you have one)? Are you really trying to say that a resident of the greatest nation in the history of the world would be incapable of supporting themself without a taxpayer subsidized mode of transportation? That is just sad. And it is the mindset that is destroying our nation.
Comment: “Many many people depend on it, from people like me who chose not to own a car, to people who can’t afford a car, to the disabled and elderly, and those who just want to get to the airport or a sporting event without dealing with traffic.”
Response: Many people depend on MARTA precisely because a government subsidized pseudo-monopoly distorts the market. Private sector companies would gladly step in to fill Atlanta’s transportation needs but they can’t compete with an organization that receives $350,000,000 in tax subsidies every year.
Alas, beautiful sunshine and fresh air are calling me away from this computer screen so I will stop again for now. The forecast for tomorrow predicts possible rain so maybe I can finish this discussion then.
This post is a response to a commenter on my earlier post, Public transportation, solution or problem? You can see the original post and the comment in their entirety here: https://gajim.wordpress.com/2010/02/18/public-transportation-solution-or-problem/
Commenter: “This is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read.”
Response: I felt the same way about Thomas Pynchon’s “Gravity’s Rainbow”. You’ll get over it.
Commenter: ” You say that MARTA is a “drain on Georgia taxpayers.” Are you aware that MARTA is the only large public transit system in North America that does not receive any state funding? This is a completely false and ignorant argument that is used over and over by those opposed to public transportation. MARTA is paid for entirely by ticket income and a 1% sales tax in Fulton and Dekalb counties”
Response: I am aware that MARTA is funded primarily by a 1% sales tax levied in Fulton and Dekalb counties. Are you aware that Fulton and Dekalb counties are in the state of Georgia?
Everything a resident of those counties buys costs us 1% more because of the MARTA tax. According to MARTA’s own budget projections that takes about $350,000,000 out of the pockets of Georgia taxpayers. You may believe that a 350 million dollar tax is not a drain on our state’s economy but I respectfully disagree. We have a subjective disagreement and that is okay. Calling my statement “a false and ignorant argument” simply displays your arrogance.
Commenter: “MARTA has already raised fares and reduced service, so the deficit will be reduced.”
Response: I concede my time to the gentlewoman from MARTA, CEO Beverly Scott, “she would need a one-cent sales tax in the eight metro counties outside the Perimeter, plus 65 percent of an additional penny tax in Fulton and DeKalb just to keep MARTA running as it is”. You can read the entire article in The Beacon here: http://bit.ly/adRoQK
Is MARTA starting to look like a “drain on Georgia taxpayers” yet?
Enough of this for now. Today is a glorious Saturday morning and I intend to enjoy it to the fullest.
GA Jim 