MARTA Could Cut Entire Day(s) of Service
Decatur Metro | March 25, 2009In trying to persuade committee members at the state capitol to release some of the $65 million set aside for “capital improvements”, MARTA Gen. Manager, Beverly Scott talked of cutting service completely on certain days of the week if the money wasn’t made available.
Undeterred by the possible catastrophe foretold by Scott , some committee members took the opportunity to question MARTA’s “pre-market collapse” pay raises and some complicated “back-lease” bank deals that the agency got involved with the help of the feds.
20/20 hindsight sure is great, isn’t it legislators? Personally, I like to use it when contemplating your own $2-$3 billion deficit.
Let’s say it together now, “What were you thinking!?”
Latest from Decaturish
They seem like relevant questions. MARTA can hardly expect to have its hand out and not have anyone ask questions about its finances.
They’re not the critical questions, though. What everyone should be asking is why MARTA’s users are asked to pay a paltry 28 cents of every dollar it costs to operate the trains. The fare hike they seem to be contemplating — a mere 25 cents — is not nearly enough. Some level of tax subsidy is inevitable here, but is this a means of public transit or a flat-out welfare program?
Does allowing MARTA to use its own sales tax $$ in a different way classify as “having its hand out?”
Also, from our many previous conversations you must anticipate the response coming…”car-based infrastructure is much more heavily subsidized than public transit.” How much more? 9 times more.
So are you opposed to ALL transportation subsidies, or just public transit subsidies? If the latter, why the differentiation?
Eliminating weekend service will be extremely harmful to low income workers who rely on MARTA to get to their weekend employment. The incredible highway subsidies and housing subsidies that allow the middle class to live in Suburbia and beyond are just as harmful. It is class warfare, and they won!
Only if DEM is willing to pay the real costs of driving on the highways the next time he gets into his car, then and only then will be able to ask MARTA riders to pay $4-$5 to take the train rather than $1.75 with a straight face.
Oh, I know, drivers pay taxes for roads when they fill up their car with gas, but the paltry amount of gas tax in this state doesn’t even come close to funding the car based road infrastructure in this state. The majority of it is funded by you and me who hardly ever use the interstate system in Georgia but are subsidizing commuters who live in far flung suburbs. If these commuters are being subsidized with “road welfare” (as DEM would put it) then why not riders of public transit?
There are lots of good ideas about how MARTA can raise more revenue through distance based fares, advertising revenue, etc., but raising the fares on everyday riders of MARTA could have the inverse effect on ridership revenue. There is a point you could raise the fare high enough that revenues might actually decline, which would not only hurt MARTA’s budget but force more people into cars putting more pressure on our roads.
Not only that, but the state fiat requires MARTA to spend 50% of its sales tax revenue on infrastructure instead of operations makes no sense.
I just recently started to take MARTA to work and noticed how much money they spent on new buses. For what, the ols ones we’re working fine. The buses have flat screen tvs, with flashing monitors and tell you when you cross every street instead of the bus driver talking with you. Also, MARTA is not a welfare program, however, if they recieve funds from the government they can not place the money in their pocket with raises and then increase the bus rates. For some individuals, this is there only way to get around and they rely on it. Let MARTA see how many rides when they charge $5 each way, people can then buy a car, get a taxi or ride with someone they know for spending almost $300 a month on public transportation.
Raised, one reason why MARTA spends $$ on buses and things is that under current law they have to spend 45% of the sales tax revenue on capital items that they sometimes may not really need.
Is it just me or does it seem strange for a “Transportation” service to cut transportation. I would assume their mission is public transportation. Would it not make more sense to perhaps trim a bit of administration. Or even start going with smaller buses. So many of the large busses run with only one or two people on them. Efficiency, now there is a concept
Highway subsidies for those who drive cars are way too high in comparison to the meager subsidies given to MARTA. And, the stipulation that 50% of MARTA’s budget must be spent on capital items that may or may not be needed, leaves nowhere near enough for service issues. If MARTA cuts even one day of public transportation, it will impact millions of people who must use public transportation to get to weekend work, weekend shopping, church, etc. The viable, most economically efficient future is in public/mass transportation, not in building and maintaining more highway infrastructure.
Certainly, MARTA needs to get its financial house in order. But the state needs to give the agency wiggle room in its state-legislature-mandated to use some of its reserves and capital funds. And the authority needs to consider going beyond the $.25 fare increase that might be proposed — perhaps to $.50 or $.75, as well as moderate pass increases. I know that many low income people depend on transit, but Washington and San Francisco run heavy electric rail systems based on per-mile travel — systems which all incomes use. It’s too bad that apparently Breeze, from what I read, cannot be set to allow for per-mile travel, which defeats the purpose of having a smart card system.
And perhaps there needs to be a different fare structure for bus service (local buses being cheaper), express Blue Flyer and north Fulton P&R service (more expensive) than for the trains. I would hope the Breeze fare system would at least be able to accommodate this. Unlimited passes, with very modest increases, should be maintained for people of modest incomes so that they may have the service they need.
Cutting one day a week service would be a disaster not just for the working class, but also for Atlanta’s business and convention industry, which has MARTA’s connection to the Airport and downtown as a major touting point when attracting business and conventions downtown.
We could probably live with cuts in service to 30 to 40 minute headways on train service on Sundays, and more infrequent bus service on a temporary basis, but completely cutting service a day a week would make MARTA no better than Gwinnett or Cobb’s piecemeal systems. Once the economy recovers, there needs to be a major restoration of service. My fear is that the cuts would be permanent. I know too many people who rely on MARTA as the sole means of transportation due to the fact that they cannot afford a car payment.
Also, Jill Chambers (R-Dunwoody)? Did you ever speak up when the train-lease deal was going on not just with MARTA, but WMATA in DC and other transit agencies across the country — deals that seemed to be good in generating more revenue OUTSIDE of taxpayer funds (which instead blew up in everyone’s faces)? No? Then quit harping on it.
I made very clear that some sort of subsidy for MARTA is inevitable. So I am not against subsidizing it. I am for it. But the question is how much. I am against the ridership paying less than 30% of the costs. They should pay more. There hasn’t been an appreciable fare increase in years.
In terms of where the subsidy money comes from, I would be more than happy to support taking some of it from road-building budgets, and did not suggest anything to the contrary. And since this issue was needlessly personalized, believe me, I am paying the real costs of driving my car. If you’d like proof you can come look at my W-2.
The issue is MARTA’s long-term viability. I understand the point about the capital spending issue, DM, but even that is not enough to keep the system viable long-term, hence MARTA is looking for new sources of revenue. The obvious answer, to me, is to get a lot more of it from passengers. To say that trhe fare system needs an overhaul does not have a direct relationship with how much we spend on roads, and I am not sure why the two are being confused here.
Completely agree with the need for improved mass transit options as discussed above, although to be honest a 30-40 min headway on Sundays would probably push me back into driving to the airport rather than taking the train.
Noticed an interesting statement from Nancy:
“There is a point you could raise the fare high enough that revenues might actually decline”
I wonder if that applies to income tax as well. (Yeah, it’s off-topic, but I couldn’t resist.)
(1) Go to a distance based fare system (maybe make shorter trips actually cheaper to encourage more frequent short trip transit usage and longer trips more expensive), charge a small surcharge for the airport (or the Dome on football season Sundays) but not high enough to encourage driving instead and exempt people who work at the airport. I don’t know where the person who says Breeze cannot handle this got that information, but when Breeze was rolled out I thought that one of the benefits touted was that it could do so.
(2) Overhaul many of the bus routes (many still follow the old trolley routes from 70 years ago or were created by political not practical purposes) so that they accomplish one thing: getting people to the nearest MARTA rail station quickly and frequently. Use smaller shuttle type buses on these routes so that they can run more frequently. Many people who don’t live within a couple of blocks of a station will either not walk to the rail station or if they have to get in their car to drive there, will just drive to their destination instead. Make it easier to get to a rail station instead. People will use the shuttle buses if they run more frequently than every 40 minutes like the Second Avenue #22 bus currently does.
(3) As to the people who complain about the spanking new buses or the flat screen TV’s. This is exactly the reason why the state needs to give MARTA more flexibility with its funding. They have to use that money on new infrastructure, not opertating costs. So they go and buy stuff they don’t need, and larger buses than they need, rather than increase service.
I’m outraged that MARTA employees have taken pay raises which now require a taxpayer bailout. Of course MARTA will tell us they have to give these exorbitant salaries to attract and keep talent. But I’m not buying any of it. Thank god our hard working legislature is asking the tough questions. Washington could learn a thing or two about governing by watching what goes on under the golden dome.
MARTA is asking to spend the capital improvement money on operations PLUS more government money on top of that. This particular AJC article does not make that clear but past articles have done so. Whether that’s called a bailout or not is a matter of form, not substance.
Will this do?
MARTA’s top administrator on Monday warned of steep fare hikes and drastic cuts in passenger services if the transit agency cannot find more revenue sources to make up for a projected $60 million revenue shortfall.
Scott warned the transit agency cannot ask for federal assistance without demonstrating that the state is willing to make more of an investment in public transportation.
Scott said MARTA riders should expect a fare increase next year, but if the agency doesn’t get an increase in funding either from the state government or other outside sources, “it will be the difference between a precipitous increase and a modest one.”
http://www.ajc.com/services/content/printedition/2008/12/16/marta.html
State Sen. Vincent Fort (D-Atlanta), a member of the General Assembly’s MARTA oversight committee, supports giving the transit system more flexibility to spend its sales tax revenues. Temporary legislation allows the system to spend 55 percent on day-to-day operations and 45 percent on construction projects. Generally, the system is restricted to an even, 50-50 split.
MARTA has “built out the system,” Fort said Friday. “It needs more of its resources for operating.”
Fort also said MARTA needs help from the state. Unlike other big-city transit systems, MARTA receives almost no state subsidy.
http://www.ajc.com/services/content/metro/atlanta/stories/2008/12/12/marta_budget_atlanta.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=13
MARTA cannot win this battle alone. We need your help! Please ask your state legislators to restore and pass legislation removing the 50/50 split on MARTA sales tax revenue. MARTA, in the short term, needs this to survive.
Over the long term, if MARTA is to continue to play a critical role in building and strengthening metro Atlanta’s economy, a new and sustainable state based funding stream must be made available for ongoing operating and maintenance expenses. MARTA must be able to operate what it builds….while maintaining its infrastructure in a state of good repair.
http://www.itsmarta.com/about/MARTA_materials_list/Help%20Georgia%20Keep%20MARTA%20Alive%20-%203-9-2009.pdf
If the state doesn’t intervene with a direct infusion of cash by July 1, MARTA officials will have to make “draconian” cuts to its workforce and services, officials said.
MARTA General Manager and CEO Dr. Beverly Scott said with the cuts in place, officials believe the system can go through the fiscal year “without having to increase fares, without having to decrease service. However if we do not receive an infusion of additional funding by July 1st, then everything is on the table,” she said, referring to job cuts and service reductions.
MARTA has not hiked its fares since 2001. Scott said that she personally would like to see a modest fare increase, but if state or other funding sources aren’t made available, fare hikes and service reductions would be severe.
Officials will ask the state for direct funding and changes to the system’s bylaws that restrict MARTA from using sales tax and earned interest from investments.
http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2008/12/15/daily7.html
Again, I’m not saying no subsidy. It’s already subsidized by a sales tax and from the feds. But they have a massive revenue problem, and a big fare hike has to be a part of the solution. There hasn’t been ANY increase since 2002, which is nuts, IMO.
Dem, you are on the right track but take it a level deeper. Don’t focus only on revenues to the exclusion of costs. These fat cat bus drivers’ salaries must be reined in!
To be fair, I think MARTA has taken some actions on costs. Whether it is sufficient, I don’t really know, and I have no clue what the bus drivers make.
Check out Maria Saporta’s blog:
http://saportareport.com/blog/?p=457
Thanks Steve. Great post. Obviously, Maria makes some great points. Among them: why the heck does the GA legislature have any say in MARTA’s decisions anyway?
If you want to provide state funding, great! Get involved/interfere all you want. If not, shut your trap and let Atlanta run its transit system.
It’s not a simple fix. MARTA’s current shortfall is projected to be about $60 million, which is the sum total of its cap ex budget, I believe. So assume MARTA gets permission to spend the cap ex money as it sees fit, and then spends every dime on operations. It then makes it through this year. But MARTA still has a long-term projected shortfall of many millions of dollars. Thus, as MARTA said in the presser I quoted above, “[o]ver the long term, if MARTA is to continue to play a critical role in building and strengthening metro Atlanta’s economy, a new and sustainable state based funding stream must be made available for ongoing operating and maintenance expenses.”
For comparison purposes I did a quick Google search for BART’s FY 09 budget. Guess what is their largest single source of revenue? Passenger fares. In FY 08 BART put through a fare increase of about 5%. What has MARTA’s management done? Looked for revenue from just about everyone but the people who ride the trains. No fare increases since 2002, and the fare increase they’re now proposing is just 25 cents. Despite spending millions on Breeze, we still have no destination-based fare system. There is zero doubt that this is leaving revenue on the table.
So it seems to me that the Legislature is well within its duties to ask MARTA why it’s done nothing on fares in all these years and, having such a track record, whether it should get the additional state money it’s already asking for. Consider also the problem evidenced by the examples of CTA and MTA — i.e., the funding requests going up, up, up, despite increases in ridership. Note also that CA’s budget crisis has the state thinking about pulling its roughly $25mm in support for BART.
Obama’s promise was to throw aside ideology and support only those programs that work. It’s therefore worth asking hard questions about whether MARTA works — does it need a little assistance to achieve true long-term viability, or will be a bottomless money pit? The answer that MARTA will work if it gets a blank check is really no answer at all, if that is what is being proposed.
I think we both agree that a fare hike is probably needed DEM. But we’ve also discussed in the past that with every fare hike, ridership drops. So its not pure profit. Its a balancing act. You want riders to pay, but you need to encourage ridership too.
I think we can also agree that part of MARTA’s woes inadvertently are caused by the vast amount of money (fed/state/local) that’s been spent on roads during ATL’s boom years. Can MARTA have a chance to “work” when so much time and money is spent making cars more convenient and public transit less? Like most everything else, this system is heavily influenced by gov’t money…its not a pure live/die capitalist demand system.
People aren’t stupid. They drive cars because its cheaper and easier. Why? Because its heavily subsidized. Some might even call it “car welfare.” When you ask, “does it need a little assistance to achieve true long-term viability, or will be a bottomless money pit?”, I say when the auto infrastructure demonstrates long-term viability and doesn’t need 5 times the subsidizing as transit, we can link arms and go out together and demand accountability for transit. Since that day will never come, I’ll continue to point out that transit continues not to receive a fair shake.
Oooh…and I love comparisons to BART. Can we do all the things to discourage car usage that San Fran does and then look at MARTA ridership contributions?! That would be awesome.
Driving a car is cheaper and easier than taking MARTA? By what possible measure? A monthly MARTA card is what, $45? Compare that to buying a car, gassing it up, and paying to park it. It’s not even close. MARTA is substantially cheaper in every respect. It’s also easier. No fighting traffic. You can read and work on the train. But you have to actually drive your car. Driving north on the connector or GA 400 is already a massive pain in the ass. The horrors of Atlanta traffic are a huge incentive to take MARTA.
Which is all to say that the problem for MARTA is not ridership. This “competition” issue is thus a complete red herring. Ridership is increasing despite money spent on roads. The problem is revenue. MARTA depends on a sales tax that is utterly unrelated to its mission. Thus, that revenue can plummet even if MARTA is otherwise doing very well. Which is exactly what is happening. It has also seen fit to charge its willing patrons very little for the service, thus severing all but the weakest link between demand for its service and its revenue.
The BART comparison is apt here. You suggest that the mix of incentives is much better in SF, which I will point out is served by a very large north/south highway plus the incredibly expensive Pac Coast Highway. The car-based subsidies are so significant that we spanned the Bay not once but twice to facilitate car travel to and from San Fran. Talk about expensive. But even setting that aside, taking BART from SFO to the Financial District costs about $10. Here, Hartsfield to anywhere at all is less than 20% of that. Even adjusting for COL, BART is far more expensive.
I agree that increasing the fees at some point will cause a drop in ridership. But the fares have been effectively decreasing for 6 years now.
What I completely do not understand is why you and so many others think that because MARTA does not get a large enough slice of the government pie, we have to ignore the accountability issue until it does. Do you usually invest in something first and then worry about how the money will be spent later? The fact that we may foolishly spend money on roads does not mean it’s wise to foolishly spend on MARTA. I’m not saying it is foolish. But the questions should be how much do you need and what are you doing to get the money from available sources now. I don’t see why MARTA should not have to answer these questions in a very detailed manner. Here, it seems like there’s hostility to anything other than “here’s your blank check.”
Yeah sorry, a little sloppy arguing in my last post. I said “cheaper” and meant “value” aka “more bang for the buck”. The flexibility, the at-your-door convenience, ready at a moment’s notice, go anywhere…
And if you don’t live near a transit hub, it certainly isn’t easier. Once you’re on the train/bus, yes. But if you have to drive and park at a station, wait for a bus, make multiple transfers, etc, that’s certainly not easier.
DEM, its not that I don’t expect accountability, its just that I think its laughable that the State government is the one demanding it. How about MARTA be accountable to those that pay the sales tax and not the state government? Can we agree on that?
And finally, you state “The fact that we may foolishly spend money on roads does not mean it’s wise to foolishly spend on MARTA.” The reason I continue to bring up roads is because in my experience, you only criticize public transit (and not roads) when it comes to wasteful gov’t spending. If both are equally wasteful (which they’re not, roads are much more wasteful), why don’t you save some ire for GDOT and their ilk too? Your accountability gauge seems to be a bit lopsided.
All:
I went to MARTA’s community update last night and the information that they presented wasn’t pretty.
As far as parking goes, it would take about a million bucks, from what I can remember, to implement a paid parking system at all stations, and that’s just with the “honor box” system (if you think everyone will pay, get real!). Increasing the long term parking fees would be more practical, according to what they presented.
Even without the axing of the 50/50 rule, fares are going to go up. Monthly passes will have to climb each month (currently $52.50 for non-disabled, non-employer-purchased passes) to $60 in FY 10 and up to $68 in FY 12. One way fares would be $2 starting in FY 10.
If the 50/50 rule isn’t eliminated, cuts will have to happen to the tune of $24 M… either by completely shutting down the system on Fridays (the lowest ridership day according to their stats), or one day on the weekends. Another scenario is to limit hours on the weekends (I left my notes at home), from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., essentially making MARTA like Cobb or Gwinnett except with Sunday service.
Just my two-bit report for y’all…
Well, the legislature adjourned last night without taking any action whatever on the MARTA issue, not to mention any other transportation relief, so get ready.
MARTA is not asking for a bailout. They’re merely asking for the ability to spend the tax money they’re already getting where it is needed most instead of being forced to allocate it using a 30 year old outdated formula. As for salaries, I suggest you do a little research into what other comparable transportation agencies are paying for similar work. I think you’ll find that MARTA is in line.
What additional government money are you talking about? Be more specific.
“Unlike other big-city transit systems, MARTA receives almost no state subsidy”.
MARTA stands alone as being the largest transit system in the country that receives no state funding. Public transportation is a valid government function, like public safety or education. The roads receive a large subsidy, why not MARTA?
Amen, DM.
And another point that has only slightly hit upon in this discussion is the nationwide context of mass transit. Transit agencies around the country have fallen on hard times despite ridership levels not seen since the 1950s. The CTA in Chicago has recieved emergency state funding multiple times in the last few years to stave off service cuts and fare hikes and MTA in New York (where about 2/3 of all U.S. transit ridership occurs) has just decided to raise fares and cut service.
So MARTA is not alone in its funding crisis. It IS alone however, with it’s lack of support (funding or otherwise) from the state. Take a look north up I-85 and see what Charlotte and North Carolina or doing for transit and intercity rail and you’ll realize that our state “leaders” are the ones holding us back from true choices in transportation.
The rest of the country respects MARTA’s CEO Dr. Beverly Scott enough to make her the Chair of the American Public Transportation Association. Why can’t our state leaders do the same by listening to her and taking action on a simple administrative issue?
DEM, you are correct to point out all that goes into an individual car trip. The problem is that more than 95% of all car trips do NOT have to pay for parking. The vast majority of parking is provided by employers, retailers, etc. for FREE. As you are probably well aware, parking spaces cannot be provided for free. They cost money. The average cost to provide a single parking space in a parking structure (excluding land costs) is about $15,000. Because users do not have to pay for parking individually we all pay for it (whether we drive or not) in higher costs for everything else – housing, food, lower wages… If we TRULY and transparantly paid the full cost of driving, demand would be lower and transit use would be more attractive.
Your call accountability for transit systems is not without merit. However, unless you are calling out the State Transportation Board (who run GDOT) for the same thing it rings hollow. Where is the accountability for the Georgia Department of Roads and Bridges?
Fun stuff Reporter Cub. Thanks for the update!