Hi all,

following are my (admittedly rough) minutes from yesterday's
meeting. If you feel you have been misquoted or something has been
left out, please speak up.

Members present:
Robert Bryant
Rebecca Serna
Chris Wyczalkowski
Michelle Marcus

The group started with a discussion of how and how often they use
MARTA, especially the rail. They often plan residence, work
location, etc. around MARTA rail access. Chris W. expressed interest
in the environmental impact of MARTA use versus private vehicle use,
and how to get more car-owners on MARTA. The question was raised,
who is in charge of MARTA? Robert B. described the organizational
structure of MARTA as consisting of a board with 18 members
representing different counties, GRTA, etc. There are several layers
of umbrella agencies over MARTA with some level of control over
MARTA's activities and funding. Robert B. said there seems to be a
lot of beaurocracy. Rebecca S. said that there is poor access to
suburbs on MARTA, especially to the north. Michelle M. said it is
difficult to make side trips on MARTA. The complaint was raised that
MARTA does not seem to be proactive in anticipating growth or solving
access problems. CPT does not have good information about any steps
MARTA may be taking to be proactive. There does not seem to be an
awareness of the connection between pedestrian and MARTA access in
city planning or in MARTA's planning. Rebecca S. pointed out that
MARTA keeps reducing service due to "low ridership" but does not make
an apparent effort to increase ridership. MARTA seems to avoid
scrutiny by public or oversight groups. Robert B. said that MARTA
should be more accountable to the taxpayers and the city. The
question was raised how CPT can become more informed about MARTA's
actions, policies, and practices. For example, are they doing
research and taking action on it? Also, how can CPT get information
on MARTA's finances? Robert B. stated that CPT should provide both
positive feedback and criticism to MARTA. It was agreed that CPT's
role is to be advocates, not transit planners. There was a
discussion of ineffective or irrational bus routes implemented by
MARTA. The group agreed that MARTA needs to be simpler to use in
order to increase ridership - the route planning is to complex.
MARTA could appeal to more diverse rider needs if it were easier to
use. Image affects use of transit alternatives - associations with a
certain socioeconomic status, the American love-affair with the car,
the idea of public transit as a form of welfare. The scope of the
CPT group was discussed - it includes public transit (MARTA and other
systems), pedestrians, bicycles, and cars to an extent (i.e. how to
make them work with alternatives and reduce their necessity).
Rebecca S. asked if we are dealing with just intown Atlanta, or all
of metro including the far suburbs, which introduces complications of
a large area and low density use. It was agreed that CPT would
initially deal with areas closer to intown Atlanta (ending perhaps at
edge of MARTA coverage area?) and hope to expand as the group grows.
The group agreed to keep the name of the group as Citizens for
Progressive Transit.

* * * To be continued after my job interview! * * *