I’ve been following Concept 3 from its inception. Perhaps shed some light on why it’s such a dismal failure?”

PS, there no arguing the fact that we, as a region, have spent far too much time studying and far too little time doing. The problem is we’ve been studying the wrong things. Most of the transit studies done over the past 20 years have been project-specific, with no greater sense of how in the big picture they might fit together or how they should be prioritized. Most of this fault lies at the feet of MARTA. They’ve known for years that without a new source of funding, that the growth in sales tax receipts over time would never be enough to support new projects. For some reason though, they’ve squandered millions (yes, some of it was federal and needed to be spent on something lest it be lost) on studies for projects that never had a chance of getting off the ground. There are shelves of multi-million dollar alternative analyses and environmental reports sitting on some shelf somewhere at MARTA. The projects on those shelves include the GA400 North Extension, I-20 West HRT/BRT, I-20 East BRT (now being updated to LRT thanks to Dr. Scott), BeltLine and the Clifton Corridor. Under the MARTA Act, MARTA could not afford to build or operate any of these projects, yet they went out to the public, got people’s expectations up and then could not deliver. And they’re still out there doing it with 3 active studies, although perhaps this time, the T-SPLOST will be able to support one or more of them.

On the regional planning side, which is what I was alluding to in my earlier post, there have really only been two regional studies that I can recall since the MARTA referendum: GRTA’s Regional Transit Action Plan and TPB’s Concepts 1 through 3. The RTAP was flawed because there were some built-in biases towards express bus and bus rapid transit. Rail, which is what the public said they wanted, was mostly an afterthought and dismissed part and parcel due to cost. The express bus service actually turned out to be halfway decent (although Xpress is about to go broke) and GRTA was unable to advance any of the bus rapid transit corridors. But at least it was a plan – it put forth an implementation process that was, in most part, achievable, even if it was not really what the people at the community meetings had asked for.

TPB’s Concepts 1 through 3 were not plans, they were pure fantasies. Some of the projects had and have merit, but almost all of them were going through their own project development processes that could have continued or been coordinated independently of the TPB. All TPB did was take CFPT’s fantasy map, add political projects to get as much support as possible and then string a bunch of suburb-to-suburb bus lines between the projects. There was no prioritization of projects, no finance plan, no implementation plan, just a map with something for everyone. Now, I wouldn’t say Concept3 is a failure, if its only intent was to build a regional coalition for transit. By all accounts, it would then be considered a success (even if governments are only playing along because they think they’ll get something out of it). However, if its intent was to put together a real plan that should and more importantly, could, actually happen in our great-grandkids’ lifetimes, then it was not successful. It’s just not realistic and really, that hurt the credibility of the process and the end product.

But let’s us CfPT’s plan as a proxy for C3.
1. A rail line from College Park to Lagrange has neither the user base, nor the available rail capacity to support commuter rail. This would be a waste of money.
2. There’s ridiculous redundancy between BRT running out I-20E and having commuter rail to Covington also.
3. Running commuter rail to Rome and Gainesville isn’t feasible with existing track capacity maxed out for freight. Or you have to build additional rail lines, at exhorbitant cost relative to demand – so not feasible.
4. The DMU component makes absolutely no sense due to its redundancy with everything else.

That said, a lot of the rest of the plan looks great on paper to me. One would have to then pick up the calculator and figure out if the remainder makes the most minute amount of financial sense. Which a lot of it probably doesn’t, but that’s mass transit for you. So you make the remaining investments that get the most bang for the buck without breaking the bank or blowing all the new transit funds on possible (but not certain) white elephants.

In addition, 86.8 percent of board members agreed that the region should meet the needs of a changing population by funding more non-driving options, even if it means less money for roads.

The ARC board is showing a tremendous increase in regionalism, as evidenced by the fact that 97.4 percent of board members said they would “vote in favor of a proposal if it benefits the region, even if it does not directly benefit my jurisdiction.”

ARC’s emphasis on the importance of creating lifelong communities — places where people of all ages can thrive — seems to strike a nerve with board members. Board Chairman Tad Leithead pointed out we’re not talking about them; we’re talking about us.

How typical of Georgia and Georgians. Time after time, we spend countless hours and dollars on large-scale, comprehensive regional transit studies, only to cast them aside to collect dust once they’re finished. Inevitably, sometime later, these dusty studies are dismissed as being “highly flawed” from the start and “overly politicized.”

It’s as predictable as the rising and setting of the sun: Commission a transportation study, praise its findings, sit on the damn thing for a while, dismiss it as a failure, then start over.

All in the name of progress in the great state of Georgia, right?

Do you suggest yet another transit study? Because G_d only knows we haven’t studied the matter enough. Why don’t we start right now, then circle back in another five years or so when the study is finished. Sound good? (All the while, the roadbuilders in Georgia continue business as usual, year after year, laughing their way to the bank.)

I’ve been following Concept 3 from its inception. Perhaps shed some light on why it’s such a dismal failure?

I’m just hoping the referendum passes, almost irrespective of what’s in it. Something is better than nothing. And ideally, they’ll use some real world performance metrics for mitigating the coming tsunami of future congestion.

For all the “big tent” conversations going on at the Metro Chamber and the Regional Transit Committee, the parochial nature of our 20-some odd local county governments, 100+ municipalities, community improvement districts and transportation management associations is going to get in the way of getting a good list for metro Atlanta. I just don’t see how an estimated $7B program is going to support enough projects to garner 51% support in a referendum. The only way I see the public getting onboard is to have a “big tent” project evaluation and selection process that evaluates and selects the right projects. The Transportation Act of 2010 created a highly political process that is severely flawed and only gives authority to the political power brokers. It does not provide a transparent process nor does it allow any real public access to development of the project lists. The legislation only provides for public input at 2 public meetings and the meetings are only going to happen after the lists are finalized!!

On the mix of projects, GDOT and Georgians for Better Transportation will fight to get as many high-occupancy toll lanes/P3 projects onto the list as possible. MARTA and the RTC are going to be trying to get as many of their streetcar/light rail projects on the list as possible. GDOT has already stacked the deck by using the Statewide Strategic Transportation Plan (SSTP) as a minimum basis for project evaluation criteria. The criteria are primarily built around road metrics (reduction in traffic congestion, peak-hour freeway VMT, peak-hour freeway speed, etc.) that only road improvements are going to rate well against. IT3, through its own smoky, back-room process, has already put together a list of the state’s priorities and transit falls well behind the HOT lanes and arterial road improvements in the “burning platform”.

Mason your comment, “I fully believe, and I will stand by the idea that if ‘Concept 3′ were to be adequately funded, fully built-out, and implemented, its affect on the way and quality of life of Metro-Atlantans would be dramatic” is endemic of those at the other end of the transportation spectrum. The transit advocates in this town all want transit for the sake of having transit. Honestly, some of what’s in Concept 3 is crap. However, if anyone says something negative about a single project, like the BeltLine for example, they get instantly branded as the transit opposition. On transit, we really need to know what projects actually have a shot at being successful in the near-term. Concept 3, based heavily on the Citizens for Progressive Transit’s fantasy map World-Class Transit Vision, a pinch of MARTA tampering (I-20 conversion to LRT, HRT extension at Doraville, etc.) and a smattering of suck-up politics (Canton LRT, South Fulton Hwy BRT, the list goes on…) and does not provide any assessment of why the projects were selected or how they should be implemented. To compound the problem, at the last RTC meeting, they decided to use MARTA’s project prioritization process. I can only imagine whose projects are going to get priority…

In my opinion, neither GDOT’s IT3/managed lane plan nor Concept 3 need to be fully realized. Both project list development processes were highly flawed and overly politicized. We need to have an honest, analytical process that bundles the best ideas from the highway, transit, and even bike/ped (where as PEDS correctly states there is a substantial bang for the buck) realms to develop a passable T-SPLOST list, and then leave a secondary project list for a coalition to work on for the 2022 referendum.

1. He doesn’t respond to the core argument
2. Straw man #1 – he suggests I’m tilted against transit by not suggesting rail projects. The article was already pro-transit, I’m suggesting the obvious, that there need to be road improvements as well. That’s not anti-transit.
3. Straw man #2 – Again, he completely misread my statements on double decking. I never suggested above grade anywhere earlier, although I would argue it only makes sense on the connector.
4. Straw man #3 – Tunnel boring machines aren’t necessary unless you’re actually digging an actual tunnel, which again, isn’t what I suggested. And you can put as many lanes as you want, it’s a question of the spans. Clearly Mr. Mason isn’t an engineer. You don’t have to span all 12 lanes, and don’t have to use boring machines, that obviously wouldn’t be feasible and I never suggested that. He is correct that there is granite (which increases costs), but that doesn’t mean you need tunneling machines.
5. I don’t think Mr. Mason is familiar enough with Atlanta. The connector does not, in local nomenclature, extend all the way to spaghetti junction.
6. I’m glad Mr. Mason gets his research and engineering acumen from Wikipedia. I suppose that’s better than nothing.
7. Straw man # 50 – He says PPP’s will result in the ownership of public property and anti transit lobby. There is no factual basis to support this. The state would retain ownership and lease the ROW or air rights to the company. His anti-PPP stance is consistent with a general lack of competence about business and PPP’s. PPP’s exist in a variety of sectors and have worked all over the country. They are highly regulated and managed partnerships. Electricity generation in Georgia is essentially a PPP, with more emphasis on private than public. When the toll revenue is maximized, the public investment will also benefit. He’s just generally uneducated about how these work. A toll operator isn’t motivated by volume, they’re motivated by revenue. That’s good for drivers, the state, and the private entity. In addition, the plans for a PPP on I-285 actually use the funds to help create the ROW for the construction of additional mass transit. A win-win. Being anti-PPP is narrow minded and clearly uninformed.

Besides, none of this is going to get done anyway. Instead, we’re likely to see the tolling of the suburban interstates and expansion and widening of highways. You would think ITP people would at least be for the expenditure of highway funds where there’s the most congestion relieving potential: ie Atlanta, thus permitting higher density development that can then one day support all this transit plans. Frankly, right now the Beltline would fit my list of a “transit to nowhere” plan. There just isn’t the density there to support it. The only place it exists in Atlanta currently is along Peachtree from Downtown to Buckhead.

Where we can agree is the need for more transit. I think 20% of the funds is a fair and reasonably equitable allocation for transit (an overly generous allocation given its representation in the movement of people in Atlanta).

Ignorance will continue to reign I suppose. Oh well, I’ll leave it there, last word or otherwise. Hack away if you want without feeling the need to resort to facts. I’m done with this.