Tag Archives: public transportation

Another nail in the coffin of Georgia’s proposed transportation tax increase…

Posted on by
1

The Dekalb county commission just raised property taxes 26% to cover the county’s budget deficit. As a result Dekalb County residents will suffer a 50 million dollar tax increase even as their property values have declined. In exchange for that $50 million Dekalb residents won’t receive any additional services or benefits and are already being warned that the higher taxes still may not be enough.

As reported in the AJC:

Residents also will need more money. The new incorporated tax rate is 21.21 mills. The tax hike adds $93 a year to the tax bill on the average home, which dropped in value since last year.

But tax bills increase far more where home values have remained the same, with a $420 increase, for instance, on a home that remained at $300,000.

Those kinds of hikes will hit northern and central DeKalb particularly hard, because many home values there barely dropped. Commissioner Elaine Boyer, who represents northern DeKalb, called the tax hike a “slap in the face” for her constituents.

Boyer, who with May and Commissioner Sharon Barnes Sutton voted against the budget, said she also worried that without long-term forecasting, no one could say another tax hike won’t be needed next year.

Dekalb taxpayers are the only Georgia residents other than those in Fulton County that already have to pay a 1% sales tax to support MARTA. The new $50 million tax increase makes it less likely those same residents will choose to pay another 1% for transportation every time they spend their hard earned money.

The coffin nails are starting to add up at what be an alarming rate for those people determined to raise taxes in Georgia and proponents of the transportation tax increase know it. That is why they are moving the vote to a time when more tax and spend Democrats will likely be voting.

But even tax and spend Democrats have a limit to what they can tolerate. One must wonder if even Dekalb County Democrats may reach that limit before the transportation tax increase comes up for a vote.

The Yin and the Yang of Senior Transit in Atlanta

Posted on by
3

First there was Yin in the AJC:

Metro Atlanta seniors beware:  By 2015, 90 percent of area residents 65 and older are expected to live in neighborhoods with poor or nonexistent access to mass transit.  That’s the worst showing among metropolitan areas with more than 3 million people, according to a new study released Tuesday, “Aging in Place: Stuck Without Options.”

The study was conducted by the Center for Neighborhood Technology and released by Transportation for America, groups that advocate for sustainable development.

**************

According to the American Association of Retired Persons, when older people lose transportation options they make 15 percent fewer trips to the doctor and far fewer trips to family, friends and other places.

The groups called for a federal investment in mass transit expansion.

You can read the whole Yin here.

Then there was Yang from the CATO Institute:

Most seniors don’t ride transit. Census data show that more than 12.5 percent of all Americans are over 65, yet data from the American Public Transportation Association show that only 6.7 percent of transit trips are taken by senior citizens. The average American rides transit less than 34 times a year; the average senior citizen less than 18 times a year.

*****************

Transportation for America wants transit agencies to extend frequent bus or rail service to every remote suburb where there might be a few people over 65 — not because those people want to ride transit, but to simply give them “options.” In order to pay for service extensions to suburbs, many transit agencies have reduced transit service in the central cities where most transit riders are actually located. As a result, since 1985, per-capita transit ridership has plummeted in such major urban areas as Los Angeles, Chicago, and Atlanta.

Congress expects to pass legislation this year that will decide how to spend $40 billion in annual federal gas tax revenues over the next six years. In recent years, 20 percent of those gas taxes have been spent on transit. Transportation for America’s goal is to further increase that share. But after decades of huge transit subsidies, per-capita transit ridership today is no greater than it was in 1970 — mainly because the subsidies have focused on extending transit service to those who don’t need it rather than providing better service to those who do.

Americans will be better off by privatizing transit. Private operators will provide better service to those willing to live in denser, transit-friendly neighborhoods without wasting a lot of money trying to attract a few suburbanites out of their cars.

You can read the whole Yang here.

I remember attending a transportation charade charrette once where I had a discussion about senior transportation with Alpharetta’s Director of Engineering and Public Works, Pete Sewczwicz. Pete suggested that it would good if the city of Alpharetta could use excess capacity in shopping center parking lots as transit stops for seniors that weren’t able to drive to the doctor’s office. I then pointed out to Pete that if seniors couldn’t drive to the doctor’s office they couldn’t drive to the shopping center either and it was doubtful they would be walking the several miles from their homes to catch a bus.

As the Yang points out, most seniors have no intention of giving up their cars and the only transit helpful to those unable to drive is the kind that picks them up at their house. MARTA already spends millions providing door-to-door transportation for some elderly residents but Georgia’s taxpayers simply can’t be expected to provide door-to-door transportation for every senior citizen in the metro Atlanta area. It might be nice if every senior citizen could get free transportation but unfortunately the service wouldn’t be free, it would be paid for by taxpayers that are already facing 10% unemployment in the worst economic environment of our lifetimes.

Yin may seem like a sympathetic cause but government’s attempt to provide for every possible need of its citizens is simply not sustainable nor desirable. Put me down for Yang on this one.

Kyle Wingfield: “One conservative’s approach to mass transit: Control costs”

Posted on by
Reply

The Atlanta Journal and Constitution’s Kyle Wingfield has a great column on the astronomical expense of public transit projects. Read the whole thing here.

This is a sample:

  • For a five-phase light rail line parallel to I-85, from Doraville to the Gwinnett Arena: $70 million per mile.
  • For a combination heavy- and light-rail line from the Lindbergh MARTA station to Emory University, $92 million per mile.
  • Some kind of “fixed guideway” transit — light rail or possibly bus rapid transit — from Doraville across the top end of I-285 to the Cobb Galleria area, at $67 million per mile

 

Marta is on a death spiral

Posted on by
Reply

The title of this post is taken from a quote by Mike Bodker,  the mayor of Johns Creek, Georgia.  Mayor Bodker spoke out about the latest round of service cuts being recommended by Atlanta’s MARTA transportation system in today’s Beacon Newspaper. “We need a completely new system.,” he said. 

I expect one reason Mayor Bodker feels that way is that MARTA will no longer provide train service to North Fulton county after 7:00 pm.  One helluva “regional transportation system” we got here. Glad to know everything I buy costs 1% more just to keep up that great service!

Read the whole thing here: http://bit.ly/chFOv3

Georgia drivers as cash cows

Posted on by
Reply

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.

MARTA vs. Roads and privately operated transit

Posted on by
2

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.

In which we discuss MARTA and “equity”

Posted on by
1

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.

In which yadda yadda yadda … MARTA

Posted on by
1

I continue to address the points raised by Paul in our discussion of MARTA:

Commenter:  “the voters themselves approved both the construction of MARTA and the 1% sales tax to maintain MARTA. Fulton and DeKalb voters chose to support MARTA, so I stand by my assertion that it is in no way a “drain” on taxpayers.”

Response:  I see no connection between the fact that voters approved the 1% sales tax in 1971 and your assertion that the tax is not a drain on today’s taxpayers. The fact that voters approved the tax makes it legal but it has no bearing on the fiscal soundness of that vote 40 years later.

Commenter: “In addition, it is not a “$350,000,000″ cost for taxpayers”

Response: You are right. MARTA will not cost taxpayers $350 million in 2010. According to MARTA’s fiscal year 2010 budget (available online) they project $476,932,780 in revenue from taxpayers. I had completely forgotten about the money coming from the federal government in addition to the sales tax. Thank you for pointing that out.

Commenter: “You quoted Beverly Scott, that 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.” In fact, this is the very plan that Republican Governor Perdue, as well as the Atlanta Regional Commission (sp.), support.”

Response: Governor Sonny Perdue’s plan is not being portrayed as an additional MARTA tax. The Governor says he is proposing another 1% tax on Georgia taxpayers as a solution to all of the transportation problems here in the state. Do you really expect voters in Gwinnett and Cobb Counties to approve an additional 1% sales tax on themselves to support a transportation system that doesn’t even serve them? And the extra tax won’t solve our transportation problems in Fulton and DeKalb Counties if it will barely keep MARTA “running as it is”. Now is the time for Metro Atlanta voters to find out the truth so we can vote on the tax increase intelligently.

Commenter: “We already have by far the lowest tax rates of any developed country.”

Response: Your statement is false. The United States does not have “by far the lowest tax rates of any developed country.” You can see for yourself at this link: http://www.worldwide-tax.com/index.asp#partthree If you have any evidence to support your claim please provide it.

Commenter:  “the majority of taxpayers in this two-county area are supportive of MARTA.”

Response: We will find out how supportive they are when the voters are asked to double their MARTA sales tax as part of Sonny Perdue’s transportation plan. A tax increase of 600 million dollars in metro Atlanta may not go over as well in this economy as it did in 1971.

I don’t have the energy to address the “equity” issue of MARTA tonight so I will break for now and pick up at this point later.

In which I respond to the towering genius of rude commenter Paul, part III

Posted on by
4

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.

In which I respond to the towering genius of rude commenter Paul, Part II

Posted on by
Reply

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.