Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Transit Report: Atlanta-Macon commuter rail could spark smart development
Posted by Thomas Wheatley @thomaswheatley on Wed, May 26, 2010 at 8:25 PM
The case for commuter rail line service between Atlanta and Macon received a little oomph yesterday: A new Brookings Institution study says the much-needed project could be an economic shot-in-the-arm — and help change the sprawlish monstrosity metro Atlanta's become over the last 50 years.
The thorough study — commissioned by Georgians for Passenger Rail, a successor organization to Georgians for the Brain Train — offers a hodgepodge of ways that local jurisdictions could fund the 103-mile rail line. Gordon Kenna, the advocacy group's executive director, says the study offers a business case for the project and should answer the last, lingering questions state lawmakers still have about passenger rail — what's it gonna cost and where can we find the cash?
According to Kenna, work on the rail line — which would cost an estimated $400 million — could begin as early as 2016. Should everything go according to plan, trains could be running several times a day between Atlanta and Macon by 2018. Located along the route would be stops in Hapeville, Morrow, Hampton, Griffin and Forsyth. (Download a study PDF here.)
"It's the right time to put the numbers in place and think, Is this what we want?" he says. "Our opinion is that this is like the decision Atlanta made in the '50s and 60s when they said, We think it's time to make a major investment in transportation. Back then it was the interstate highway system. Now it's rail."
The study's authors — which include Christopher Leinberger, a Brookings fellow who's followed metro Atlanta real estate trends for years — looked at a variety of funding tools, including millage increases, tax allocation districts and sales tax revenues to find the cash needed to build and operate the rail line.
Using this so-called "layer cake" method, city and county officials — with some cash assistance from the state — could scrounge together the $400million needed to fine-tune existing tracks and $25 million to run the trains each year. Keep in mind that the study was conducted prior to the passage of House Bill 277, a regional transportation funding proposal that would allow counties to levy a one-cent sales tax to build roads, bridges and transit projects. A mixture of funding mechanisms could be used to build and maintain the rail line. That extra funding could only help the commuter rail line's funding hopes.
Transportation drives development, Kenna says, and investing in rail could lead to walkable streetscapes and mid- to high-density real estate — centered around or near train stations — that's in short supply but high demand thanks to five decades of sprawl. What's more, the study says, it could do all this in the southern part of metro Atlanta that's been historically overlooked for the northern 'burbs.
"[Georgia's] been unbelievably successful in providing a lot of housing for folks who want drive-able, suburban development," Kenna says. "The market delivered more product than could be absorbed. And they ended up delivering less product of what turned out to be higher demand — walkable, urban development. What we see are really important trends about where demand is headed and why real estate market is in condition it's in. We have an oversupply of certain product and less supply of others."
The rail line could jump start and change land-use patterns surrounding the stations, bringing walkable streetscapes and mixed-use development — two features that young, mostly single people and couples are increasingly seeking when they look for a place to live. Aging residents could also benefit from this type of environment because they wouldn't have to drive to go shopping or could connect to transit. Throw in the fact that the train stops could revitalize the downtowns of cities along the routes, and you see the clear incentive such a proposal has for local officials to — Jesus, please pardon the puns — get on board.
(Statistics for the rail lines impact on a downtown Atlanta — the station's currently proposed in "The Gulch" near Philips Arena — weren't included, Kenna says, because the area is so large to define and could bump up against existing projections. Kenna says Georgians for Passenger Rail, which began with the mission of connecting universities between Athens and Atlanta with train service, hasn't lost sight of that vision. The Atlanta-Macon route is more feasible in the short term, he says, and already boasts some federal funding.)
The group will now meet with policymakers, elected officials and state lawmakers to gain more support for the proposal.
"The risk is in not making the decision to move forward on this," Kenna says. "Suppose Atlanta had said in the 1950s and 60s, 'You know, these airports and interstates... I'm not sure. I like it how it is.' We wouldn't have had the success we did. We're at the same crossroads today."
Comments (17)
Showing 1-17 of 17
like
dislike
"Atlanta-Macon fast trains urged" - Atlanta Constitution headline - February 3, 1974
"Transportation drives development, Kenna says, and investing in rail could lead to walkable streetscapes and mid- to high-density real estate — centered around or near train stations" This statement is troubling to me for several reasons. First of all, investments in transportation infrastructure should be driven by improvements in mobility for people and freight, and not by whether it will spur real estate developments. Real estate development should be market driven, not government driven. Secondly, this notion of "Smart Growth" somehow will spur ridership in transit is simply not supported by the historical data. In the 1970's, a least a dozen major urban areas embraced the smart growth vision. Here is the change in transit ridership since 1982 in those 12 cities: Baltimore down 28.8% Boston up 2.9% Denver-Boulder down 11.5% Honolulu down 50% Minneapolis-St. Paul down 41.6% Portland up 14.6% Sacramento down 31.5% Salt Lake City up 26.1% San Diego down 3.9% San Francisco down 17.2% San Jose down 39.7% Seattle down 19.7% Average of above cities: down 16.7% Average of the 85 Urban areas: down 37.1% (research from Cato Institute and Randal O'Toole) One last bit of data to consider: If transit carries 2% of travel in metro Atlanta, and "smart growth" leads to a 2% growth in transit ridership each year while driving only grows at 1% per year, after 100 years, transit will still only be carrying 5% of the travelers. So, I understand that transit has become suddenly fashionable and trendy. But does that mean its a wise investment of the scarce transportation dollars? My experience has been when asked, those who want more transit rarely answer in the affirmitive that they would themselves be riders. In other words, most transit proponants want transit so OTHER people can ride it and make the roads less congested for themselves. So, before everybody gets swept up in the transit trend, take just a second to look at the historical data.
Transit investments must be focussed on getting people from one place to another. Such investments should not be designed to plump up real estate developers. Atlanta seems already to have forgotten that transit is the underlying reason for the BeltLine. Will the State be next?
Lewis: You are exactly right about the Beltline. While it sounds sexy and trendy, it is not a transportation project. It is a real estate development project. And there is certainly nothing wrong with a good real estate development project. I do have a problem though spending a BILLION dollars of public money just to spur this real estate venture. There are certainly lots of better ways to spend a billion dollars that will have a much greater impact on mobility in Atlanta, and the factual data is out there to prove it. If the Beltline is such a great transportation idea, then let the private sector fund it. I'm all for the free enterprize system.
Having spent my high school years as a young, confused, gay teenager subject to conservative Christianity in Macon, I can safely say there is no reason to go to Macon. Any train should be directed to where it's needed, and those trains should be in the northeast and northwest corridors of the metro. The southern line does not have the density. Oh, yes, thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster that I'm back in the evil, liberal den of iniquity that is Atlanta -- my hometown.
Real Estate is not purely market driven. The government is constantly pouring money infrastructure (roads, sewer, power) that influences where development goes. Alternatively development goes where well connected people can cheap land that they are able to rezone. The metro region will have development. Development will be drawn to where infrastructure is. If we don't do the proposed widenings to 285 or 85 then people will seek to move to areas where there is less congestion or to move near a transit station, likewise companies will move where their employees can get access (or unfortunately where there CEO's can get to the golf course but that's another story). So lets all agree that government transportation investments are a major driver in where development goes. Thus its entirely reasonable to do the beltline instead of widening 285 because new development around the beltline will be far more sustainable and than scattered strip malls and subdivisions. Everytime i watch the spill cam I can't help but think how short sighted we are for continuing this tired pattern of car oriented development. And all that's on the table for transportation investments seems to be widening 285 for cars, widening 85 for cars, widening 75 for cars then that's then we will continue to get virgin forests converted to strip-mall cul-de-sac car oriented development leaving older expanses of abandoned or underutilized stripmall developments will remain. The recent trends of redeveloping our old school car oriented development into walkable and transit friendly developent (though still not perfect) will be hurt if we start another wave of highway expansions which the managed/lexus lanes are. The lack of transportation dollars in Atlanta recently has actually allowed the free market to start working and thus the slow down in government funded capacity is a major reason why the region has seen some promising real estate trends. globalwarming.house.gov/spillcam www.artscriticatl.com/2010/05/modas-adapting-suburbs-in-21st-century%E2%80%9D-is-the-new-suburbanism-coming-to-a-strip-mall-near-you-by-jonathan-lerner/ But as to Macon? eh! I'm not sure about that.
Government transportation investment? Sounds like a misnomer to me. My idea of investments never comes from the Government. I think a better description would be something like "Taxpayer funded high speed rail considered for Atlanta to/from Macon". Isn't that a better and more accurate picture of what this is? I know that kind of accuracy doesn't sell well from a Pro Big Government point of view but I am for transparency and truth. Because if this were a true investment - private companies would be creating this and we could invest our dollars with this company in the hopes of making a profit from our dollars loaned in the future. I am for mass transit - I am just tired of the wasteful ways government spends our money. I would LOVE for a private company to come in and do this and make a fair amount of money to reward them, and those who invested with them, for the risk they would take. How much Government do we need? As little as possible.
Wouldn't it be better and more accurate to say "Taxpayer and user funded high speed rail...?"
Skeptic Says: "Secondly, this notion of “Smart Growth” somehow will spur ridership in transit is simply not supported by the historical data. In the 1970’s, a least a dozen major urban areas embraced the smart growth vision. Here is the change in transit ridership since 1982 in those 12 cities: Baltimore down 28.8% Boston up 2.9% Denver-Boulder down 11.5% Honolulu down 50% Minneapolis-St. Paul down 41.6% Portland up 14.6% Sacramento down 31.5% Salt Lake City up 26.1% San Diego down 3.9% San Francisco down 17.2% San Jose down 39.7% Seattle down 19.7% Average of above cities: down 16.7% Average of the 85 Urban areas: down 37.1% (research from Cato Institute and Randal O’Toole)" Let's not consider that data, since it's not representative of what's really happening. It's a trick that Mr. O'Toole loves to use since the real, raw numbers do not support his position. He is taking what's called the Urbanized Area's (UZA) population to calculate those percentages. The problem is that the UZA extends far beyond the area actually served by the transit system. Let me give you an example. Let's look at NY City. NY City's Subway and bus system served a 2008 population of just over 8 million people and 321 square miles. NY's UZA however in 2008 contained 17.8 Million people and covered 3,353 sq. miles. Who expects the NYC Subway to extend 50 miles into New Jersey? But Mr. O'Toole is using that 17.8M population when he calculates the percentage of people that the subway serves. Making matters worse is the fact that every time a small town on the edge of the UZA, but outside of the UZA, gains a few more people it then becomes part of the UZA. In 1996, the NYC UZA was 2967 sq. miles, an increase of just shy of 400 sq. miles in just 13 years. So even though the subway still doesn't leave the 5 boroughs of NYC, it gets measured against that dramatically growing population caused by the UZA's boundaries changing every year, using Mr. O'Toole's method. If however we go look at the raw data for Portland, Oregon one of the cities cited as having a decrease in ridership, we find the following. In 1969 Portland's Tri-Met moved 15 million rides, by 1973 it was up to 20M, 1978 9 35M, 1986 - 48M, 1998 - 68M, 2003 - 88M, and just last year 101.5 Million rides were taken. Doesn't sound like a decrease in transit ridership to me. http://trimet.org/pdfs/publications/rail_transit.pdf
Richard, that's fine to call it "“Taxpayer funded high speed rail considered for Atlanta to/from Macon” If you also say "Taxpayer Funded Interstate 285"
Richard: "I am for mass transit – I am just tired of the wasteful ways government spends our money. I would LOVE for a private company to come in and do this and make a fair amount of money to reward them, and those who invested with them, for the risk they would take." That first sentence is a riot! You support mass transit, but hate wasteful government spending. There is no bigger inefficient use of transportation dollars (government spending) than to use them on mass transit. It has the highest cost per passenger mile than any other form of transportation out there. And you would "love" to see a private company come in and do this and make a fair return on their investment. Guess why you haven't seen it happen in Atlanta or anywhere else on this planet? Because there is not a profit to be found in mass transit. Every system in the world is a money loser and requires a government subsidy. If transit was such a great business opportunity, there would be companies fighting to provide the service. And AlanB, where is your research published and what are your credentials? O'Toole and the Cato institute have a pretty strong reputation. For my money, high speed inter-city rail, that can compete with air transportation, is about the only rail worth investing in. It still requires a government subsidy, but the ridership will be there if it can compete with air travel.
Skeptic Says: "There is no bigger inefficient use of transportation dollars (government spending) than to use them on mass transit. It has the highest cost per passenger mile than any other form of transportation out there." Actually, NO. If you had said "it has the highest subsidy per passenger" you would have been correct, even though that's a function of how we've built this country to skew the numbers. But as stated, that's not true. It costs far less to move a passenger on a train than any other mode. On average in this country according to the National Transit Database, it costs 40 cents to move 1 passenger 1 mile on a heavy rail train (MARTA) or a commuter rail train (what's under discussion here). It costs 60 cents to do that on light rail. It costs 80 cents to move 1 passenger 1 mile on a bus. And that amount doesn't include the costs of fixing the damage to our roads that all those buses cause. http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/pubs/national_profile/2008NationalProfile.pdf The IRS tells us that it costs us 50 cents to drive our car 1 mile. But that's just the costs that we pay directly, things like insurance, car loan interest, repairs, and gas. We also pay for all those roads, and a large part of that money does not come from gas taxes, it comes from property taxes and income taxes. In fact last year, just at the Federal level, the highways in this country got a 50% subsidy. This country spent $69.116 Billion last year on its highways and of that, the Federal fuel tax provided only $34.616 Billion. That $34.5 Billion subsidy would have when coupled with the revenue collected, run every transit agency in the US for 2007 & 2008 covering both operating & capital expenses. Skeptic Says: "And AlanB, where is your research published and what are your credentials? O’Toole and the Cato institute have a pretty strong reputation." I don't need to have published research or any credentials to simply apply common sense. The numbers don't lie. The CZA's are expanding every year. Atlanta's has gone from 1,137 sq. miles and a pop of 2,157,806 in 1996 to 1,963 sq. miles and a pop of 3,499,840 in 2008. And those numbers also come from the National Transit Database. And transit Ridership is going up in this country, it's only by spinning the data that Mr. O'Toole can make it appear to be going down. In 1970 there were 7.3 billion trips taken on transit in this country. That includes ferries, monorails, trains, buses, and demand response. In 2008 that number was up to 10.5 billion trips taken. Does that sound like a decrease? The above numbers taken from page #2, don't count the index pages. http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Documents/FactBook/2010_Fact_Book_Appendix_A.pdf
Skeptic: Where are the numbers showing that "mass transit... has the highest cost per passenger mile than any other form of transportation out there."?
Skeptic: It is easy for you to pretend that the total cost of roads is not a factor. However we spend billions each year building new roads, maintaining them, paying staff to attend to crashes, etc. while only a very small number of roads actually generate ANY revenue (unlike rail). So be honest, reset the discussion and add these costs to the equation and see how cost effective roads are vs. rail. As a second step we can start to factor in the health impacts (air, obesity, etc.) of encouraging 1000's to hop in vehicles every day to get to work and take short trips. This too has a public cost. As a third step we can then begin to factor in the staggering public costs of building inefficient infrastructure to support the unplanned sprawling sub and ex urban growth (emergency care, fire services, water). So come on, Skeptic, who are you trying to fool? Let's have an honest dialog with all of the costs taken into consideration. You'll quickly see that the total cost of your road-lust is considerably more than what you are letting on.
Latest in Fresh Loaf
-
Time and Place: Read between the lines
To me this photo is about doing your own thing and following your own path in life.
-
Vernon Jones wants to return to the Gold Dome and other interesting qualification tidbits 1
Qualifying period ends, dust settles, campaigns begin
-
Suspects in Pittsburgh gay bashing slated to go to trial Tuesday
The men accused of beating Brandon White in Southwest Atlanta already headed to court
- More »
More by Author
-
So that Obama-riding-a-unicorn photo that's floating around the Internet... 3
Taking ownership of the 2008 CL cover
-
Mayor's proposed budget stresses public safety, 'fiscal stability'; doesn't include cash for jet packs or pirate museum 5
Reed wants to hire 500 more cops, open Office of International Affairs
- More »
