Comments on: Atlanta can recreate the great transit system it once had

By: Jock Ellis

Jock Ellis — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 14:34:33 +0000

CCTgirl, do you mean we need to discover some new sort of transportation rather than use steel wheels on steel rails(swosr)? I’m not sure what you are saying. But using swosr as a method of transportation gives the tightest concentration of passengers and the longest lasting vehicle and the best chance of getting to the destination on time. When a highway is moving smoothly, you have one point one persons (Atlantans have only one car in 10 with more than one person) for every 50 or so feet of lane. With lanes being 10.5 feet wide, that means that one person takes up 525 square feet of space. In a railcar, a person sits in a seat which takes up roughly 1.5 feet wide and three feet between seat backs for a 4.5 square foot space. Buses take up the same space per person but do not last nearly as long as rail cars nor are they able to bypass traffic but must ride out most stop and go situations.
What Lawyer Biola forgot to mention in his piece was that the City of Atlanta required the street car companies to pave the area on both sides of the track. This allowed the unlicensed taxies, jitneys, to zip down the tracks, pick up the trolley’s potential passengers and give them a comfortable ride on a paved road. Georgia Power, one year, estimated that jitneys cost it $90,000. At a nickel a ride, that’s 1.8 million customers that jitneys stole. And Atlanta would do nothing about it! Atlanta has never done anything about transit except abuse it.

By: Crystal T

Crystal T — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 01:47:39 +0000

I believe Concerned Transit Advocate is correct in his history. And I didn’t need to dig up any streets to know that the tracks are still there.

I’m impressed that CTA is considering the past as he looks to the future.

I’m amused that anyone would find that unsettling.

By: CCTgirl

CCTgirl — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 05:05:10 +0000

I think what the Concerned Transit Advocate is trying to say is that rather than look behind us to see what was, we need to focus on what we can do. We waste our time looking at what we had, rather, we need to focus on what we can have now and in the future. If doctors and scientists sat around saying, “Man, that one type of chemo was pretty good, let’s go back to using that,” then we’d never have new and better drugs and we’ll never cure cancer.

By: Frank

Frank — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:24:44 +0000

Some of our streetcar history was recently unearthed during the current renovation of the streets and sidewalks on the Marietta Square. Just 4 inches beneath the street surface lay the streetcar tracks. I had seen pictures of the streetcar in the Square, but seeing this physical evidence of that long gone service was a bit overwhelming. The streetcar line was probably forgotten by most Cobb voters when they turned down MARTA.

Thanks for reminding us where our region came from and where we can still go, Lee Biola.

By: Mason Hicks

Mason Hicks — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 08:39:55 +0000

The problem with Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is that there is no consensus as to its specific definition. The National Bus Rapid Transit Institute quoted the following as their definition in their Feb-09 publication “Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision Making”:
“A flexible, high performance rapid transit mode that combines a variety of physical, operating and system elements into a permanently integrated system with a quality image and unique identity.” http://whttp://www.nbrti.org/CBRT.html
I recently downloaded the updated version of this to see if a clarification now finally existed. To my dismay, despite its’ title, the document’s contents seem to simply reinforce the vagueness.
We’ve run into this issue several times in transit advocacy in Atlanta especially during the FTA mandated Alternatives Analysis phase of a planned project, such as the Belt-line. In this case, MARTA planners presented elaborate photos of some of the most sophisticated systems in the world. One of the images, most impressive to the viewing audience was an artist rendering of a BRT system, which I’m not sure where it was supposed to be or if it even exist(see similar image at http://ti.org/EugeneBRTFantasy400.jpg.). The tires of this train-like vehicle were moving on track-like parallel narrow concrete running pads, with turf in-between for each bus-way suggesting something other being manually guided. However, we later witnessed MARTA referring to the operation of standard city buses operating on slightly modified freeway emergency service aprons as BRT. It was when we sought to call them on this, and we researched for an official BRT definition that we discovered that a definition that we could hold them to didn’t actually exist. The bait-and-switch routine is very easy if you provide a vague definition. For this reason I and others will always be dubious when BRT is matched up against rail-based modes as an alternative transit mode.
Having said that, there are many cases, where rail-based solutions are simply inappropriate; such as and outer ring loop, connecting less-urbanized suburbs. In Paris, they have such a system in place. But anything that links with the urban core that is not rail-based is simply adding buses to the city’s already congested streets, as is occurring in Atlanta.

By: WestsideATL

WestsideATL — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 00:03:45 +0000

I think atllin83 made an excellent point. World-class transit systems are more than just great rail systems. They are multimodal systems with multiple layers of service (intercity rail, urban heavy rail, tram/streetcar, and bus). While these systems are common throughout Europe and becoming increasingly so in Asia, only our largest cities (NYC, Boston, Chicago and LA) and Portland are close to even achieving true multimodal systems.

CFPT’s World-class transit plan was a start for Atlanta but only had a smattering of BRT corridors. Concept3 takes the bus expansion concept a step further; however, it generally misses the target by identifying far too many nonsensical suburb to suburb routes. Most of the Arterial BRT routes are reasonable and were actually part of a bus-centric plan that GRTA shelved almost a decade ago.

I truly respect the transit advocates and their unwavering support for something that’s a necessity for this region. They just need a reality check. Look, this region and state are seriously broken. MARTA has serious problems. Sonny’s transportation plan as it currently stands and if it ever makes it out of court, will never make it through a referendum. Any positive change that Barnes can bring regarding transportation is a few years off. Bold actions are only going to come in small measures. ARC or a “coalition of the willing” will need to pick a couple of projects and find a way to make them real. If Cobb or Gwinnett want LRT anytime in the near future, they’ll need to increase their millage rates/sales taxes to improve their background bus services and get it going. Maybe GDOT will then, god-willing, come along and connect them via I-285. On a smaller scale, if Atlanta wants a streetcar project, it’s going to need to at least put up a local match to get federal assistance.

If any of these projects are viewed as a success (and they should be if they are implemented correctly) then perhaps Mr. Hodges’ “influentials” will realize that they’ve strayed from the path and work to reorient the region away from our self-destructive, pavement-happy present towards a more sustainable, and transit-friendly, future.

By: Mason Hicks

Mason Hicks — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 18:17:55 +0000

Concerned Transit Advocate,
It is not the Progressives who are revising history. Lee Biola is simply pointing out that the system was at one time in place; it worked well, and served Atlanta well. Then we squandered it. How it came to be is valid history, and it should be understood and honestly taught in our schools. To take your argument to its conclusion, everything that is Atlanta, everything that is now Georgia and America was once the domain of the Native Americans. That includes space that you now occupy, and lay down at night; and also the space where you work. Should all that be dismantled for the manner in which it entered our domain? Perhaps so, but it will not. We should still try to make Atlanta the best place possible for modern day Atlantans, while still seeking to understand our honest and unfiltered history; if that is possible.
Conversely, it is actually those who oppose our idea of building a World Class transit network who use this much edited and abridged version of history that you describe. They do this to make the fallacious point that the historic system of rail networks that Mr. Biola detailed was almost entirely privately funded and profit-based. Therefore, they argue that any new system should likewise, be privately funded and profit-based. They, the rail transit critics certainly do not offer up the historical ramifications of how the railroad came to Georgia, nor the conditions under which this occurred; nor the remainder of the US for that matter. This legacy is by no means unique to Georgia. Incidentally, it should also be pointed out that the modern freight rail carriers currently operate on right of way that shares this legacy.

By: Jock Ellis

Jock Ellis — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 07:53:14 +0000

Crooked? dishonest? criminal? At least they did something. I’m sure our present governor is honest. He also hasn’t done anything. Terrible to say, but most of man’s great accomplishments came as a result of a chance to make incredible profits if one didn’t get hung up on conscience.

By: atlin83

atlin83 — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 03:19:22 +0000

This article is great, and makes lots of good points. I just wish that it recognized that many of them apply to much-needed bus services as well as much-needed rail.

I’m not one of those who says that rail should be usurped by buses, or that buses are always more efficient for everything, and so on and so forth, but I do believe that each mode has its place in a well-developed transit system.

I have to take issue with the rail focus of this article, for this reason. Buses are an important part of Atlanta’s transit history, present, and future. The Atlanta 1940 Streetcar Map is, in fact, a map of a multi-modal transit system. Every red line on that map is a bus. Every dashed green line is a trackless trolley (electric bus). Like the system we once had, the MARTA system as we know it is a multi-modal system too, with buses feeding rail lines. And, not that you could tell from Mr. Biola’s article, the MARTA sales tax was passed to fund not just the rail system, but the bus system too.

It’s also important to note that in MARTA’s current financial crisis, the bus system is slated for a major reduction – as a result in the decline of receipts of that very tax.

There are, and will continue to be, places that rail – heavy, light, commuter or streetcar – can’t go or wouldn’t make sense. It is simply not smart, nor feasible, to leave bus transit out of the discussion. It is also not smart, nor informed, to imply that a great transit system relies only on forms of rail service.

Again, I’m not a bus-only person, and I think that the rail investments that Mr. Biola is espousing make sense. I hope this doesn’t sound overly defensive, but I primarily don’t want my comments to be taken as those of a Bush-era bus-onlyist. However, there are currently unmet needs in our current bus systems, and there are bus components to all future plans. These also deserve recognition in the discussion on how to promote and support improved transit.

By: Concerned Transit Advocate

Concerned Transit Advocate — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 02:57:31 +0000

This editorial concerns me deeply. I have always believed that progressives who advocate for things like smart growth, public transportation and other urban issues have done so from a place of facts and real analysis rather than ideology, ignorance, racism or other nonsense. This piece disturbs me because we are now crossing the line with many spurious and revisionist connections between history and reality. Georgia railroad development was linked to some of the worst unethical, illegal, corrupt and criminal activities in the history of state government. The Trail of Tears as well as slavery played a large role in the development of the early Georgia rail system. Franchise agreements and the taking of land by private corporations were a big theme. While there were certainly economic benefits to the railroad network and it can be used as a basis for a new rail passenger system, let’s not claim that it was built out of an ideal or destroyed entirely out of subsidies for cars. The railroads themselves played no small role in the elimination of many passenger services.

The depopulation of the city had to do with school desegregation and white flight than it did with the state of the transit system. Again a spurious cause and effect.

From now on lets look forward and develop a world-class transit system for Georgia. While historical context is very important, using it as the justification for future investment is not appropriate. We should not mimic the tactics of supposed academics like Wendell Cox or Randal O’Toole who are selling their “analysis” to the highest bidder, rather we should base our argument in real facts and real academic peer-reviewed research, plenty of which is available for free online. Our movement can’t afford anything else!