MARTA to face drastic cuts after bill stalls

[miketoronto]

There is no doubt that there needs to be secure funding for transit in American cities. However at the same time, I get the sense that American Transit systems tend to spend money very quick and don't really think of how to build an efficient system that can weather storms better.
I know low density plays into it and all that. But American Transit systems recover something like 30% or less of operating costs from fares. That is very low and I am sure there must be ways to get the cost recovery higher.

[scpatl4now]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

There is no doubt that there needs to be secure funding for transit in American cities. However at the same time, I get the sense that American Transit systems tend to spend money very quick and don't really think of how to build an efficient system that can weather storms better.
I know low density plays into it and all that. But American Transit systems recover something like 30% or less of operating costs from fares. That is very low and I am sure there must be ways to get the cost recovery higher.

I'd like to know how a city like Toronto pays for their transit (I'd really like to know...no sarcasm). Public transport here is never a money maker. It is one area where there has to be government subsidy because the private sector could never make any money. This is a situation where more government involvement is a good thing. MARTA's problem is that only 2 of the 12 metro area counties have to pay for the entire budget (granted they are the 2 largest Fulton/Dekalb) with a 1 cent sales tax. There is NO state funding (the only one in the US that gets no state funding...fyi). Unfortunately our state legislators are about as dysfunctional a group ever seen in government.

[goat314]

Originally Posted by scpatl4now

I'd like to know how a city like Toronto pays for their transit (I'd really like to know...no sarcasm). Public transport here is never a money maker. It is one area where there has to be government subsidy because the private sector could never make any money. This is a situation where more government involvement is a good thing. MARTA's problem is that only 2 of the 12 metro area counties have to pay for the entire budget (granted they are the 2 largest Fulton/Dekalb) with a 1 cent sales tax. There is NO state funding (the only one in the US that gets no state funding...fyi). Unfortunately our state legislators are about as dysfunctional a group ever seen in government.

Trust me Georgia is not the only state with an anti-urban agenda. In Missouri - St. Louis gets a measly $1.4 million for Metro, while the state across the river (Illinois) gives $20+ million annually for our less populated Illinois suburbs. The biggest blow to public transportation is when Ronald "Cut the Hell Out of a Social Program" Reagan stopped giving federal subsidy for operating costs. That practically derailed public transit for slow growth regions and urban areas in conservative states like Atlanta, Georgia and St. Louis, Missouri.

[Tuckerman]

What is sad in all this is that MARTA (and probably other systems as well) has the basic infrastructure in place for a first class transit network. If even the original build out plans were carried out the system would be significantly improved. The argument that systems should pay for themselves is absurd: of course no one expects roads to pay for themselves! We can only look on with envy at those big city transit systems in the UK, France, Germany, etc.

[miketoronto]

scpatl4now
I did not say that there should be no gov funding. I am just saying that the funding the transit systems get could maybe be used in a more efficient manner if these transit systems really sat down and looked at ways to make their transit networks operate better.

I know transit networks need more gov funding, but at the same time some solutions must come within.

You mentioned Toronto. Canadian Transit systems recover something like 60%of operating costs from fares. Toronto is in the 80% range.
Many of these transit systems serve just as sprawly areas, and yet are able to recover more money from fares.

The question has to be asked why can't American systems do better in the cost recovery situation and then even if there was a cut in funding from the sales tax due to the economy, they might have been able to hold onto services better.
Also one has to ask why transit systems that rely on sales tax, don't put a certain amount of money aside each year in a reserve fund, so that services can be kept running during an economic slowdown.

There is no doubt that funding needs to be improved. But the operation of the transit networks themselves also needs to be improved.

[jew4life4948]

Originally Posted by scpatl4now

I'd like to know how a city like Toronto pays for their transit (I'd really like to know...no sarcasm). Public transport here is never a money maker. It is one area where there has to be government subsidy because the private sector could never make any money. This is a situation where more government involvement is a good thing. MARTA's problem is that only 2 of the 12 metro area counties have to pay for the entire budget (granted they are the 2 largest Fulton/Dekalb) with a 1 cent sales tax. There is NO state funding (the only one in the US that gets no state funding...fyi). Unfortunately our state legislators are about as dysfunctional a group ever seen in government.

From the wiki

"...Until the mid-1990s, the TTC received operational subsidies from both the municipal level of government, and the provincial level. When the Harris Conservatives in Ontario ended those subsidies, the TTC was forced to cut-back service, with a significant curtailment put into effect on February 18, 1996 and an increased financial burden was placed on the Municipal government. Since then, the TTC has consistently been in financial difficulties. Service cuts were averted in 2007 though when Toronto City Council voted to introduce new taxes to help pay for city services, including the TTC. As a result, the TTC became the largest transit operator in Anglo-America not to receive provincial/state funding.[5]"

Source: http://www3.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Operating_statistics.jsp

[scpatl4now]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

The question has to be asked why can't American systems do better in the cost recovery situation and then even if there was a cut in funding from the sales tax due to the economy, they might have been able to hold onto services better.
Also one has to ask why transit systems that rely on sales tax, don't put a certain amount of money aside each year in a reserve fund, so that services can be kept running during an economic slowdown.

There is no doubt that funding needs to be improved. But the operation of the transit networks themselves also needs to be improved.

The 'reserve fund' is part of the problem. MARTA is required by law to put 50% of its revenues into operations and the other half used for capital expenditures. If one runs short (operations is now), they do not have the ability to use money thats in the other. Thats what most of the fuss was over. They are not asking for additional money, although many feel that they deserve it.
The problem is...how do you make capital expenditures to expand the system if you cant afford to operate the system you have now?

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by goat314

The biggest blow to public transportation is when Ronald "Cut the Hell Out of a Social Program" Reagan stopped giving federal subsidy for operating costs. That practically derailed public transit for slow growth regions and urban areas in conservative states like Atlanta, Georgia and St. Louis, Missouri.

This is a dubious historical assertion. Operating subsidies ended under Clinton (though indeed began to decline under Reagan), and the justification for reducing federal operating subsidies was based upon multiple studies showing provision of and increases in subsidy level went disproportionately to higher wages/benefits of operating employees with very little going to support the 'public' benefits provided by public transportation such as keeping fares low or increasing service levels. It was actually a predictable outcome given the nature of labor negotiations and arbitration - if there is any additional room in the operating budget, the arbitrator will tend to award a good chunk of it when labor contracts are re-negotiated every few years.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

The question has to be asked why can't American systems do better in the cost recovery situation and then even if there was a cut in funding from the sales tax due to the economy, they might have been able to hold onto services better.

Short answer:
- higher motor fuel costs lead to both (a) less elasticity in demand for transit service and (b) transit being a more competitive mode choice relative to driving. Fuel in Canada is generally notably higher than the US - all the moreso in Europe where taxes are higher still, and the effects of (a) and (b) are even more pronounced.

- generally stronger regional land use planning in Canada that has kept employment more concentrated, and thus real estate prices in employment centers relatively higher, and thus parking costs relatively higher. Related to (b) above, that is the competitiveness of transit as compared to auto travel.

- transit subsidies in the US generally being provided on the basis of transit being a social service, with the idea that fares should be kept very low. The lower the fare, the lower the recovery ratio - the fare would have to get very high before overall revenue would actually start declining. Canadian transit fares are generally substantially higher than US transit fares, which not only raises more revenue (helping the recovery ratio), but is allowed because of (a) above.

Also one has to ask why transit systems that rely on sales tax, don't put a certain amount of money aside each year in a reserve fund, so that services can be kept running during an economic slowdown.

Short answer: in the US political system, they can't. If there is any room in the budget, it will immediately be used either to increase labor compensation (see above), expand the payroll, or for other feats of political whimsy. The reality transit aficionados and professionals must get used to in the US is that there will be periodic doomsday threats, as it is politically impossible to give transit agencies the budgetary leeway to avoid them. It's the nature of the beast. Sales Tax as a funding source is, in theory, pretty decent, on condition that the level of transit service provided is allowed to scale accordingly with economic activity - which it isn't, for political reasons.

[Rail Claimore]

Looks like the ARC came in and saved the day.


MARTA may get $25M in stimulus funds
Money offered by regional officials could end plans for weekly service cuts

By ARIEL HART

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Thursday, April 09, 2009

MARTA won’t have to shut down one day a week if plans launched by regional officials Thursday succeed.

A committee of the Atlanta Regional Commission recommended that ARC use up to $25 million in stimulus funds to help MARTA pay for its operating expenses. The money had been intended for long-needed metro Atlanta transportation projects...

Full story from the AJC

[scpatl4now]

Originally Posted by Rail Claimore

Looks like the ARC came in and saved the day.


MARTA may get $25M in stimulus funds
Money offered by regional officials could end plans for weekly service cuts

By ARIEL HART

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Thursday, April 09, 2009

MARTA won’t have to shut down one day a week if plans launched by regional officials Thursday succeed.

A committee of the Atlanta Regional Commission recommended that ARC use up to $25 million in stimulus funds to help MARTA pay for its operating expenses. The money had been intended for long-needed metro Atlanta transportation projects...

Full story from the AJC

For all of you not familiar with ATL transportation politics...this is HUGE! The regions transit agencies are notorious in their disdain for each other. That the ARC is doing this shows just how badly the legislators screwed up. That all these agencies are falling in line with each other (finally) points to the severity of the problem. The question is, how much of this will be remembered in the 2010 elections
Here is a link to a population density graphic with marta lines on it. There are still dense areas not served by rail that should be

http://gis.atlantaga.gov/doc_archive/raw/d003000/p003388.pdf

[Justin10000]

Originally Posted by scpatl4now

I'd like to know how a city like Toronto pays for their transit (I'd really like to know...no sarcasm). Public transport here is never a money maker. It is one area where there has to be government subsidy because the private sector could never make any money. This is a situation where more government involvement is a good thing. MARTA's problem is that only 2 of the 12 metro area counties have to pay for the entire budget (granted they are the 2 largest Fulton/Dekalb) with a 1 cent sales tax. There is NO state funding (the only one in the US that gets no state funding...fyi). Unfortunately our state legislators are about as dysfunctional a group ever seen in government.

The TTC is funded with property taxes, and through the farebox. Our farebox recovery IS good. But it is no where near enough to fund the operating costs of the system. The city helps with that, and funding is usually there, regardless of the political ideology of the mayor. It would be political suicide to cut transit funding in Toronto. Everyone knows that transit is not a money-maker. There is the occasional right-wing nut job who preaches privatization, but they are usually ignored.

I actually have to agree with Mike on the funding issue in the US. It needs improvement. Do the counties collect any sort of taxs to pay for infrastructure?

[scpatl4now]

Originally Posted by Justin10000

I actually have to agree with Mike on the funding issue in the US. It needs improvement. Do the counties collect any sort of taxs to pay for infrastructure?

Yes, a 1% sales tax by Fulton, Dekalb, City of Atlanta...but its not nearly enough. Gwinnette, Cobb, Clayton all directly benefit from MARTA yet contribute no funding to it

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

There is no doubt that there needs to be secure funding for transit in American cities. However at the same time, I get the sense that American Transit systems tend to spend money very quick and don't really think of how to build an efficient system that can weather storms better.
I know low density plays into it and all that. But American Transit systems recover something like 30% or less of operating costs from fares. That is very low and I am sure there must be ways to get the cost recovery higher.

Actually, Mike, IIRC from what I read in their capital budget, our local transit agency (SEPTA) recovers approximately 50% of their operating expenses from fares.

In any event, it's pretty well documented that short of a Tokyo crush mass transit ain't gonna turn a profit anytime soon. So dedicated funding sources are necessary, just as much in Toronto as here or Lille...the difference is that the good old U. S. of A. chose to fund road costs to the exclusion of public transit waaay back in the '50s and hasn't been able to turn that around since.

[SoundOfPhiladelphia]

To our European and Canadian forumers wondering why the US is so backward on urban planning, transit, and so many other things, Michael M is your answer.

I have always said that racism underpins the suburban movement. I know I'll probably get screamed at for saying the truth, but it is what it is.

[Justin10000]

^^Sadly, you're correct.

One of the oft-mention excuses against building a rail line is that it will bring the "undesirables, and crime to the suburbs.
SOmehow Michael M feels only white people live in the burbs..

[cybele]

MARTA Crying Wolf? Lawmaker Seeks Forensic Audit of Budget Shortfall

(Watch the video, too)

[Rail Claimore]

"It looks like MARTA may have changed their depreciation calculations, which could artificially inflate a deficit by several millions of dollars," Rep. Chambers told 11Alive News in a phone interview Wednesday evening.

When talking about depreciation, MARTA has a surplus of capital dollars. What incentive would MARTA have to lie about their capital needs? Just another politician talking out her a**.

[scpatl4now]

Originally Posted by cybele

MARTA Crying Wolf? Lawmaker Seeks Forensic Audit of Budget Shortfall

(Watch the video, too)

Jill Chambers needs to shut up or put up. "forensic accounting" indeed. I suppose she can pay for that with all adoption fees for the frozen embryos (I am not joking...the GA Leg. actually took this up during the session, but yet no time for MARTA). She is still trying to ride a MARTA corruption scandal that occurred years ago to further her agenda. She is one of the people who is constantly screwing the people of Atlanta (and she REPS part of Atlanta!!!). The current MARTA head honcho is certainly not going to tarnish her reputation with phony accounting tricks. She is chairman of the ATA for heavens sake. I for one dont know why she wants to stay here, but we are lucky she is there...perhaps its Jill the shrill who needs to get the boot

[scpatl4now]

Originally Posted by Rail Claimore

"It looks like MARTA may have changed their depreciation calculations, which could artificially inflate a deficit by several millions of dollars," Rep. Chambers told 11Alive News in a phone interview Wednesday evening.

When talking about depreciation, MARTA has a surplus of capital dollars. What incentive would MARTA have to lie about their capital needs? Just another politician talking out her a**.

Exactly...since operations and capital expenditures are separate BY LAW (which is the problem) it makes no sense at all