Wednesday, March 23, 2005
Saturday, March 12, 2005
LOVEJOY RAIL PROJECT PRESENTS HUGE OPPORTUNITY FOR PROGRESSIVE PLANNING
The debate that rages over the Atlanta-Lovejoy commuter rail tends to camp on ridership. It's not just about that. As crucial to the discussion is counteracting the typical sprawl pattern of growth that Atlanta is famous for. To understand the ridership issue, you must foresee the hidden opportunities for sprawl control a commuter rail station presents in Lovejoy. With clear logic, we see the ridership and sprawl issues addressed simultaneously.
If you've been to Lovejoy, you know it's one of the most sparsely populated areas (for now) on the Southside.
Therein lies the beauty of it.
Lovejoy is wide open for a world-class transit village to be constructed around the train station. Build a mixed-use village with residential, retail, and business at appropriate densities with sufficient connectivity to the station, and they will come and these urban pioneers will ride.
Before the density-haters cry "foul", consider that through Transect Planning, the density around the train station would become progressively less dense as you move outward from the transit zone, perserving more true rural character than would be the case with the current zoning model. Add in Transfer of Development Rights, where land owners can be paid to not develop their land by "sending" the rights inside the transit zone, and you've got a recipe for Super Smart Growth on the Southside.
We cannot afford to be in denial about the coming population explosion and must plan for it accordingly, bringing to bear the best in planning practices.
We must learn from the mistakes of the rampant growth of the Northside. Citizens and government who think the Southside can accomodate the growth by simply building more roads should wake up and smell the coming cloud of car exhaust.
Transit-oriented development, if allowed to be properly built around the commuter rail station, will put the ridership question to rest and provide a much-needed relief valve to the coming congestion.
- Burke Sisco
The debate that rages over the Atlanta-Lovejoy commuter rail tends to camp on ridership. It's not just about that. As crucial to the discussion is counteracting the typical sprawl pattern of growth that Atlanta is famous for. To understand the ridership issue, you must foresee the hidden opportunities for sprawl control a commuter rail station presents in Lovejoy. With clear logic, we see the ridership and sprawl issues addressed simultaneously.
If you've been to Lovejoy, you know it's one of the most sparsely populated areas (for now) on the Southside.
Therein lies the beauty of it.
Lovejoy is wide open for a world-class transit village to be constructed around the train station. Build a mixed-use village with residential, retail, and business at appropriate densities with sufficient connectivity to the station, and they will come and these urban pioneers will ride.
Before the density-haters cry "foul", consider that through Transect Planning, the density around the train station would become progressively less dense as you move outward from the transit zone, perserving more true rural character than would be the case with the current zoning model. Add in Transfer of Development Rights, where land owners can be paid to not develop their land by "sending" the rights inside the transit zone, and you've got a recipe for Super Smart Growth on the Southside.
We cannot afford to be in denial about the coming population explosion and must plan for it accordingly, bringing to bear the best in planning practices.
We must learn from the mistakes of the rampant growth of the Northside. Citizens and government who think the Southside can accomodate the growth by simply building more roads should wake up and smell the coming cloud of car exhaust.
Transit-oriented development, if allowed to be properly built around the commuter rail station, will put the ridership question to rest and provide a much-needed relief valve to the coming congestion.
- Burke Sisco
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
ATTACK OF THE ROAD WARRIORS.
The State of Georgia continues to negotiate with the Norfolk Southern railroad over plans to begin running commuter trains between Atlanta and Lovejoy. And even though there's still no final agreement, the highway lobby and its supporters are becoming increasingly worried that commuter rail just may become a reality in Georgia, competing for a small portion of the state transportation budget. Road-builders, real estate developers and others who profit from highway spending long have promoted the notion that Georgians won't ride commuter trains, a fantasy that will be dispelled when Georgia gets commuter trains, and -- surprise, surprise -- people ride them! Now that there is a real chance that commuter trains may begin operating in Georgia as early as next year, the Road Warriors have launched their counterattack. State Rep. Steve Davis (R-McDonough), a real estate agent whose 2004 campaign contributors included the Georgia Assn. of Realtors, the Builders Political Action Committee, developers, an auto dealer and ChevronTexaco, introduced a bill (HR 254) that would bar the Georgia Dept. of Transportation from spending any money on the Atlanta-Lovejoy line unless individual communities along the line sign binding documents promising to cover all operating losses. The measure is a clear "poison pill," and Rep. Davis made his intent even more clear in an op-ed piece in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, unambiguously titled, "Don't Waste Money on Lovejoy Rail Line." While there is not enough room in this newsletter to cover all of the misrepresentations in Davis's argument, the most glaring is his claim, "The $106 million dedicated to this project could go a long way toward solving our traffic problems" if diverted to roads. Could it really? In the first place, most of the $106 million is dedicated federal money that will be lost to the state if it's not spent on rail. In the second place, the average cost of building one lane mile of interstate highway ranges between $10 and $25 million, meaning that even if the entire $106 million were diverted to roads it would pay for less than three miles of a four-lane highway.
- Jim Dexter, The Peach State Xpress
The State of Georgia continues to negotiate with the Norfolk Southern railroad over plans to begin running commuter trains between Atlanta and Lovejoy. And even though there's still no final agreement, the highway lobby and its supporters are becoming increasingly worried that commuter rail just may become a reality in Georgia, competing for a small portion of the state transportation budget. Road-builders, real estate developers and others who profit from highway spending long have promoted the notion that Georgians won't ride commuter trains, a fantasy that will be dispelled when Georgia gets commuter trains, and -- surprise, surprise -- people ride them! Now that there is a real chance that commuter trains may begin operating in Georgia as early as next year, the Road Warriors have launched their counterattack. State Rep. Steve Davis (R-McDonough), a real estate agent whose 2004 campaign contributors included the Georgia Assn. of Realtors, the Builders Political Action Committee, developers, an auto dealer and ChevronTexaco, introduced a bill (HR 254) that would bar the Georgia Dept. of Transportation from spending any money on the Atlanta-Lovejoy line unless individual communities along the line sign binding documents promising to cover all operating losses. The measure is a clear "poison pill," and Rep. Davis made his intent even more clear in an op-ed piece in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, unambiguously titled, "Don't Waste Money on Lovejoy Rail Line." While there is not enough room in this newsletter to cover all of the misrepresentations in Davis's argument, the most glaring is his claim, "The $106 million dedicated to this project could go a long way toward solving our traffic problems" if diverted to roads. Could it really? In the first place, most of the $106 million is dedicated federal money that will be lost to the state if it's not spent on rail. In the second place, the average cost of building one lane mile of interstate highway ranges between $10 and $25 million, meaning that even if the entire $106 million were diverted to roads it would pay for less than three miles of a four-lane highway.
- Jim Dexter, The Peach State Xpress
Tuesday, March 08, 2005
Rail ridership exceeds expectations, study says
A study of rail-based public transit systems in nine U.S. cities found that ridership surpassed expectations in nearly every case and that rail systems boosted redevelopment around transit stations.
The 18 month old study, "Rail Transit Works: Light Rail Success Stories from Across the Country," conducted by the MaryPIRG Foundation, analyzes the popularity of transit systems in six states and Washington, D.C.
Among the findings:
• When Denver extended light rail service to two suburbs, Littleton and Englewood, ridership in the first year was 40 percent higher than projected.
• In car-dependent Los Angeles, many commuters have turned to the subway. Planners expected 100,000 passengers daily on a new section of the Red Line and had to add cars when ridership rapidly reached 120,000 daily.
• St. Louis reintroduced rail service in 1993, decades after the city’s street-car lines closed. Ridership by the end of the first year was expected to be 12,000 passengers daily. Actual use was 3.5 times higher, with 44,000 daily riders.
• Salt Lake City's system, at time of the report, was transporting 50% more riders than anticipated.
The report also found that people traveling via rail are not simply people who switched from buses when rail became available, according to surveys of rail passengers in three cities.
Nearly 50% of rail passengers in Los Angeles had a car available for the trip on which they were surveyed.
In Denver, 75% of passengers had access to a car but chose rail instead. In Dallas, 59% of passengers that own cars would have driven alone if light rail were not available.
For more information on the study visit, www.marypirg.org
A study of rail-based public transit systems in nine U.S. cities found that ridership surpassed expectations in nearly every case and that rail systems boosted redevelopment around transit stations.
The 18 month old study, "Rail Transit Works: Light Rail Success Stories from Across the Country," conducted by the MaryPIRG Foundation, analyzes the popularity of transit systems in six states and Washington, D.C.
Among the findings:
• When Denver extended light rail service to two suburbs, Littleton and Englewood, ridership in the first year was 40 percent higher than projected.
• In car-dependent Los Angeles, many commuters have turned to the subway. Planners expected 100,000 passengers daily on a new section of the Red Line and had to add cars when ridership rapidly reached 120,000 daily.
• St. Louis reintroduced rail service in 1993, decades after the city’s street-car lines closed. Ridership by the end of the first year was expected to be 12,000 passengers daily. Actual use was 3.5 times higher, with 44,000 daily riders.
• Salt Lake City's system, at time of the report, was transporting 50% more riders than anticipated.
The report also found that people traveling via rail are not simply people who switched from buses when rail became available, according to surveys of rail passengers in three cities.
Nearly 50% of rail passengers in Los Angeles had a car available for the trip on which they were surveyed.
In Denver, 75% of passengers had access to a car but chose rail instead. In Dallas, 59% of passengers that own cars would have driven alone if light rail were not available.
For more information on the study visit, www.marypirg.org
Monday, March 07, 2005
HAMPTON IN (OR OUT?)
The Road Warriors are afraid that if the Atlanta-Lovejoy line is built, it quickly will be extended to its natural destination, through Hampton to Griffin. A Jan. 31 article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, "Commuter Rail Is a Tough Sell in Hampton," suggested that "skepticism abounds" in the Henry County community, but many of the negative opinions voiced in the article were ill-informed or contradictory. While some complained that no one would ride the trains, others complained there aren't enough parking spaces at the station for the cars of those supposedly non-existent passengers. The most troubling aspect of the article was reporter Eric Stirgus's misleading statement that the annual cost of running the Hampton station would be $540,000. In truth, commuter train stations can consist of as little as a platform and a parking lot, and you'd be hard-pressed to spend $500 a year running a train station in Hampton, let alone $500 thousand. What the $540,000 figure actually refers to is the cost of running the trains. Since the Georgia General Assembly has shamelessly abdicated its responsibility to fund operating costs for the Atlanta-Lovejoy trains, communities along the route -- recognizing the economic benefits of commuter rail -- have agreed to subsidize the trains for the first few years. While those communities are to be commended for their foresight, they should not have to bear this expense. This would be the equivalent of requiring every individual community along I-75 to help pay for road maintenance. It is blatantly unfair, because commuter train stations serve passengers coming from many miles away. In every other state that has commuter rail, train operating expenses are the responsibility of the state, or of a regional authority. Georgia needs to develop a regional plan to fund transit.
- Jim Dexter, The Peach State Xpress
The Road Warriors are afraid that if the Atlanta-Lovejoy line is built, it quickly will be extended to its natural destination, through Hampton to Griffin. A Jan. 31 article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, "Commuter Rail Is a Tough Sell in Hampton," suggested that "skepticism abounds" in the Henry County community, but many of the negative opinions voiced in the article were ill-informed or contradictory. While some complained that no one would ride the trains, others complained there aren't enough parking spaces at the station for the cars of those supposedly non-existent passengers. The most troubling aspect of the article was reporter Eric Stirgus's misleading statement that the annual cost of running the Hampton station would be $540,000. In truth, commuter train stations can consist of as little as a platform and a parking lot, and you'd be hard-pressed to spend $500 a year running a train station in Hampton, let alone $500 thousand. What the $540,000 figure actually refers to is the cost of running the trains. Since the Georgia General Assembly has shamelessly abdicated its responsibility to fund operating costs for the Atlanta-Lovejoy trains, communities along the route -- recognizing the economic benefits of commuter rail -- have agreed to subsidize the trains for the first few years. While those communities are to be commended for their foresight, they should not have to bear this expense. This would be the equivalent of requiring every individual community along I-75 to help pay for road maintenance. It is blatantly unfair, because commuter train stations serve passengers coming from many miles away. In every other state that has commuter rail, train operating expenses are the responsibility of the state, or of a regional authority. Georgia needs to develop a regional plan to fund transit.
- Jim Dexter, The Peach State Xpress
Sunday, March 06, 2005
A Bus by any other name would still stink of diesel and get stuck in traffic...
LightRailNow.org does an enlightening piece on the "Bus is Rail. Rail is Bus" subterfuge. This article helps us to see what should be obvious: Buses ain't trains, even if you call them "flex trolleys" and "bus rapid transit." Read more...
Thanks to Jason King for sending the link...
LightRailNow.org does an enlightening piece on the "Bus is Rail. Rail is Bus" subterfuge. This article helps us to see what should be obvious: Buses ain't trains, even if you call them "flex trolleys" and "bus rapid transit." Read more...
Thanks to Jason King for sending the link...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
