By John Ruch
While under pressure for an audit of its sales-tax-funded expansion program, MARTA is the subject of proposals at the Georgia General Assembly that also involve questions of spending transparency and the effectiveness of future transit.
One bill up for a House vote this week would expand no-bid contracting for MARTA and any similar authority for unspecified purposes. Meanwhile, going on hold for a year is legislation for traffic cameras that are considered key for “bus rapid transit” – the emerging default for “More MARTA” expansion projects – to have a hope of really being rapid.
This session’s House Bill 193 began as a proposal to boost the size of local governments’ public works contracts that could be exempted from competitive bidding requirements – from $100,000 to $250,000.
In the Senate, it was adopted with an amendment allowing a similar, but much broader exemption for any “rapid transit authority.” The amendment allows no-bid purchases of “any goods, supplies, equipment, other property or services” from a vendor who already has a similar contract with the state or federal governments or any county or municipal government within the transit service area. The annual total of such purchasing or contracting could be up to $250,000.
The amendment came from Sen. Brandon Beach (R-Alpharetta), who did not respond to a comment request. Beach remains an influential transportation figure despite a role in backing former President Trump’s election conspiracy claims that saw the senator stripped of his Transportation Committee chairmanship and reportedly targeted by the Fulton County district attorney’s election-tampering investigation.
MARTA is aware of the legislation, with spokesperson Stephany Fisher describing it as an expansion of transit authorities’ existing ability to use state and federal contractors. But what issue does that solve? “It could help with some potential safety and security initiatives,” said Fisher.
Sen. Josh McLaurin (D-Sandy Springs) voted against the bill and had a different take: “It expands no-bid contracting, which is less accountable to taxpayers.”
However, the bill passed the Senate easily with bipartisan support. Now it goes back to the House for a vote on whether to accept the amendment. That vote could happen today or Wednesday, according to Lexi Juliani, interim director of the Senate Press Office.
Then there’s the traffic camera legislation for bus rapid transit (BRT) lanes, which MARTA was seeking this session but now expects to see introduced next year, according to Fisher. The “rapid” part of BRT relies on dedicated lanes, which may be easily blocked by illegally parked cars. MARTA needs state authorization to install automated traffic cameras along lanes and/or on buses to ticket such parkers and minimize the problem.
That’s going to be important for More MARTA’s transit promises. One BRT project – MARTA’s first – is in the construction phase: the Summerhill line, which is scheduled to start operations in the summer of 2025. Two More MARTA projects initially proposed as rail lines have been controversially reworked as BRT – the Campbellton and Clifton corridors – and more could see the same shift, including part of the transit element of the Atlanta BeltLine.
I lived in another city with “dedicated” bus lanes where I relied on public transit – not using it as an occasional option or only on one-shot publicity tours. Without a physical barrier, they were a performative joke that caused unreliability at best — and serious delays and safety issues at worst — as private vehicles and pedestrians entered the path. Still better than non-dedicated buses? Often. Rapid? A marketing term used freely and loosely by officials and consultants who will not be there to offer refunds for your screwed-up schedule, near-misses or general resentment. You are guaranteed only the “B” and the “T,” not the “R.”
In a briefing earlier this year about the Clifton Corridor’s shift to BRT, I pressed MARTA officials about the bus lane issue. Project manager Bryan Hobbs had an engineer’s realism about the challenges. “It’s like the [Atlanta] Streetcar. It gets blocked,” he acknowledged about BRT in general. But he and other officials said mitigation is possible. The answer is a “combination of enforcement and design,” says project consultant Peter Vorhees of AECOM.
Design means physical barriers or tactics like running the lane in the middle of the road rather than on the side. (The Clifton plan is unusual in proposing much — but not all — of the BRT route along a railroad track rather than on city streets.)
However, the current design for Summerhill does not include barriers – though design changes are still possible. “So you’re right, this is going to be interesting” in how enforcement works on the lanes for MARTA’s debut BRT project, Hobbs said.
Enforcement means dealing with drivers who illegally block bus lanes. The first challenge is multiple police jurisdictions. MARTA can enforce laws on its property and vehicles, says Fisher, but municipalities have authority over their streets. That means MARTA can’t currently ticket someone for illegal parking on the open road. And either way, no one has enough cops to spend all day on a bus line.
That’s where the idea of automatic, ticket-issuing cameras comes in. The devices would record the license plate and an image of the alleged illegal activity, and a citation would be sent to the owner. But such a system would require approval by the Georgia General Assembly. Fisher says MARTA is working with the City of Atlanta, in consultation with the Georgia Department of Transportation, on enabling legislation.
Greg Giuffrida, MARTA’s communications director, noted that the “first bite” at such a system was automated cameras in school zones, which was authorized by legislation in 2018. He also noted that “still very limited” in its scope. It’s also been controversial, with discussion in the General Assembly this session about whether the systems are veering away from safety into speed-trap revenue generation.
Giuffrida says camera enforcement on bus lanes has been “very effective” in other cities, especially New York and San Francisco. A 2017 report on lane tactics from the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board and media reports bear out some of that claim – especially with low rates of recidivism from those who are ticketed.
However, a full picture of the numbers and how to interpret them is hard to come by. Another message is that New York issues thousands of tickets a year, indicating the scope of the problem. Commercial vehicles tend to be major offenders and recidivists. Delivery companies FedEx and UPS are well-known for budgeting to pay traffic tickets rather than requiring drivers to park legally. In fact, New York has given them and other commercial carriers discounted payoffs to avoid clogging city courts with the sheer number of citations.
Even a recent press release touting the New York Transit Authority’s camera enforcement quoted its president as saying the tactic is “effective” but that “larger initiatives like congestion pricing will truly help speed up buses throughout the city.”
Of course, issuing a citation from a camera does nothing to remove the vehicle blocking the street at the time. And what if the General Assembly doesn’t allow the cameras at all? And what about other lane-blocking events like crashes?
Those are big questions as MARTA continually presses for BRT as the equal or better – and certainly less expensive than – light rail. “Bus transportation is also more flexible and can detour around crashes, debris or construction, where a light rail system cannot,” said Fisher.
For now, it now appears that legislative debate on the camera question will come a maximum of 18 months – probably much less – before Summerhill BRT is supposed to launch.
Leave a comment