The Peachtree Streetcar would stop every several blocks along a
10.7-mile corridor connecting West End to downtown to Midtown and to
Buckhead -- picking up and dropping off people along the way.
The Belt Line would encircle the central city, creating a wonderful way
to travel -- by rail and multipurpose pathways -- between rejuvenating
urban neighborhoods. The line would link commercial centers, parks,
tourist destinations and residential areas.
The C-Loop, along another rail line, is being proposed to link MARTA
with the Emory University complex, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention and eventually the communities in south DeKalb.
The city of Atlanta strongly supports a light-rail line along the
northwest corridor that would connect MARTA to Marietta and knit together
many of the communities along the way.
There are also exploratory discussions about a host of other potential
rail links, including bridging the Atlanta University Center with Auburn
Avenue and maybe even the Carter Center. And while we're dreaming,
wouldn't it be wonderful to finally get a rail line that would serve the
southeast part of the city -- joining downtown with Turner Field and on to
Grant Park and Lakewood?
Such an extensive rail system would fill the gaps that now exist in the
skeletal MARTA rail network, the transit backbone of the region. At long
last, people inside the Perimeter would have reasonable alternatives to
circulate around the city without having to drive a car.
And, of course, more transit encourages walking, cycling and other
forms of transportation that are much kinder to the environment than our
automobile-dependent society.
Transportation investments in rail, pedestrian and bicycle systems also
stimulate more dense developments around town centers, where people are
within walking distance of jobs, shops, restaurants and parks.
Of course, such developments are not limited to places inside the
Perimeter. Countless municipalities around the region are busy instituting
quality-growth principles in their development plans. How wonderful if
those centers could be connected with an extensive commuter rail network
that could tap into a comprehensive transit system inside I-285.
Sounds good, right?
But looking at the Mobility 2030 plan -- and most of the discussion
occurring at our state and regional transportation agencies -- light rail,
streetcars, commuter rail, MARTA, sidewalks and bikeways are all being
shortchanged for new HOV lanes, express buses and extensive investments in
arterial roads in the suburban areas of the region.
And the transit that does exist in the plan is in trouble because
there's limited long-term funding from the state or federal governments
for capital, operating and maintenance costs of the various systems.
At this rate, we're on a path of same old, same old -- investing in
roads and road-based transportation systems -- where we'll end up with
continued sprawl, long commutes and polluted air.
When the Atlanta Regional Commission held public hearings on its
Mobility 2030 plan -- estimated to cost at least $50 billion -- people
repeatedly said the region should invest in transit (preferably rail over
bus); more money should go into pedestrian/bicycle facilities; sources of
funding for transit must be identified; and that there should be regional
equity in how transportation dollars are spent.
Sounds reasonable, right?
But the ARC seems to be skirting the regional equity question. A staff
paper to the board last week stated that imposing "a rigid regional equity
standard" on transportation funding would "undermine the concept of
needs-based planning."
The paper went on to say that "considering the complexity of the
question and potential amount of disagreement which could result from
attempting to identify a formal definition of regional equity," ARC's
staff then makes "no recommendation . . . on how regional transportation
equity should be defined."
By saying regional equity can't be defined or measured, the ARC staff
basically is saying that metrowide fairness in transportation spending
shouldn't be considered when making funding decisions.
Here's the danger: The area within I-285 most likely will not get its
fair share of transportation money.
After all, the kind of transportation funding needed in the urbanized
areas of the region is transit (from MARTA to light rail to streetcar)
combined with pedestrian/bicycle facilities. As long as the state's gas
tax money can't pay for those alternative modes, our transportation
structure is inherently flawed.
It's bad enough that local governments have to provide almost 50
percent of the funding for regional transit projects, compared with an
average of 25 percent for roadway projects.
It's even worse that communities trying to develop with quality-growth
standards are being penalized rather than rewarded in the way Georgia
distributes its transportation dollars.
If we keep going down this same road, we'll be spending $50 billion on
transportation plans that will repeat the same mistakes that have plagued
this region for the past 35 years.
