One year after TSPLOST's defeat (Atlanta, Clayton: 2013, credit, subsidized)

[jsvh]

As someone that was a supporter and voted for TSPLOST last year. I must admit, I am now glad it failed. I think that the projects that have moved forward are much smarter.

Not that I am all on-board with Sierra Club, but they make some good points in this article: Sierra Club: One year after TSPLOST's defeat, there has been progress | Atlanta News & Opinion Blog | Fresh Loaf | Creative Loafing Atlanta

But I still hope to see Atlanta drive more Beltline / Streetcar transit and the region come together to support getting commuter rail going.

[kferq]

While I agree that the TSPLOST was flawed, the Sierra Club is doing damage control in this article. As a pro-transit organization their criticism of TSPLOST was that there were too many road projects and too little transit. Road projects with toll lanes and interchange improvements (some included in TSPLOST) seem to be occurring in the suburbs anyway. While transit is on hold. Finally, the positive developments that they claim are a result of the failure of the TSPLOST would have happened anyway.

1) Without explaining how the two are related, they claim that the failure of TSPLOST led to a new direction at MARTA with a more bottom line general manager and transit oriented development (TOD). The old general manager was already on her way out and TOD was already a priority at MARTA. TOD was on hold because of the economy, and is starting again because of the improvement in the economy.

2) They claim that Clayton county considering MARTA membership was caused only by the failure of TSPLOST. Once again they fail to mention that Clayton has always had some leaders interested in MARTA membership and that significant resistance to MARTA membership remains in the county, when Clayton would have had bus service running by now if TSPLOST had passed.

3) They claim that State funding for GRTA is a major advance caused by the failure of TSPLOST. GRTA was always state funded and almost went out of business because of the failure of TSPLOST. The fact that it was saved is reason for transit advocates to rejoice, but it is hardly a benefit of the failure of TSPLOST.

4) They criticized the TSPLOST for supporting new road projects over road maintenance and claim victory in that road projects are blocked. With the Governors intervention, interchange improvements on the perimeter and HOT lane projects are ongoing. Those are the very parts of the TSPLOST that the Sierra Club hated! However, inside the city were are getting no extra money for needed bridge replacements, street repairs and maintenance, or trails and transit for the Beltline.

So while from a transit advocates viewpoint, 1),2), and 3) are welcome developments, we would have been in the same or better situation if the TSPLOST passed. In 4), we who live in the city are much worse off than if TSPLOST passed.

Finally the Sierra Club promised that a plan B for transit would emerge if the TSPLOST was defeated. The article claims that the above constitute plan B. I am sorry, those are survival reactions not a plan. I applaud the leaders who are making the best out of a bad situation. The Sierra Club has shown no leadership on this issue in the last year and this article shows that they continue to show that they continue to stick their heads in the sand.

[jsvh]

I will agree with most of those points. But I still feel like think that the failure of TSPLOST has done some to get agencies to find other solutions, even if much of it would have happened regardless. Things like HOT lanes are a good example of something I don't think we would be getting as much of if they were getting highway funding from TSPLOST. But frankly I think I have realized that we need to stop subsidizing the suburbs. If you live in the suburbs you will have to accept that in most cases you are going to have a longer and more expensive commute as one of the downsides.

[cwkimbro]

Originally Posted by jsvh

I will agree with most of those points. But I still feel like think that the failure of TSPLOST has done some to get agencies to find other solutions, even if much of it would have happened regardless. Things like HOT lanes are a good example of something I don't think we would be getting as much of if they were getting highway funding from TSPLOST. But frankly I think I have realized that we need to stop subsidizing the suburbs. If you live in the suburbs you will have to accept that in most cases you are going to have a longer and more expensive commute as one of the downsides.

I want to jump on an important point, especially with state dollars.

It also depends on what you call suburbs (whether ITP people want to admit it or not) parts of Gwinnett and Cobb are more urban and parts of ITP Dekalb are very suburban.

The major point I want to make is traditional suburbs (ie Gwinnett and Cobb) are not getting subsidized with state funds. They are at an overall loss given their payout to the state (same as in the city).

The areas that traditionally get subsidized is the exurban fringe and rural areas (via GRIP, etc..)

I would be careful accidentally making divisive arguments within our metro, when we all have the same legitimate gripe.

I also have to give Gwinnett alot of credit. They ponied up the dough (locally) to build a far more robust arterial road network than many places like Dekalb did, but we also don't have multiple interstates criss-crossing out county to take that additional traffic load. Much of that has more do with the 50s-70s era development mentality... not the counties today individually.

Their building and zoning practices pushed people out.

As far as the TSPLOST... you have to consider what it was/wasn't. I'm troubled by a few arguments.
TSPLOST largely wasn't a highway expansion campaign at all and the HOT lanes were on the state agenda anyways. The defeat of TSPLOST had nothing to do with that and those of us that watch state gov't closely know this.

I also know that Gwinnett in TSPLOST wasn't getting it what it put into it (projected). In many ways we were subsidizing Dekalb and exurban areas alike.

The problem I have with the Sierra Club's general premise is that it needed to be mostly transit, but they completely that a huge amount of the spending went to transit and Atlanta has a woefully weak arterial road network (what a city should have even with transit). I felt like they unfairly noticed the progress of the WHOLE metro area creating such a large list of transit projects.

The list also biased a ton of money into activity centers ITP (which isn't a bad thing. The roads/traffic lights need to be reworked all over the place)

[jsvh]

I am still very much for transportation investment. But I think we need to be smart about it. I think in most cases a given area (or better the users) of the transportation should be putting up the money. I don't think a blanket, forced spending campaign for the region is what we need. I think each area should focus on their own initiatives.

Edit: And I also think those in the "suburbs" should not be subsidizing transit in the city that they do not use.

[AnsleyPark]

Originally Posted by jsvh

I will agree with most of those points. But I still feel like think that the failure of TSPLOST has done some to get agencies to find other solutions, even if much of it would have happened regardless. Things like HOT lanes are a good example of something I don't think we would be getting as much of if they were getting highway funding from TSPLOST. But frankly I think I have realized that we need to stop subsidizing the suburbs. If you live in the suburbs you will have to accept that in most cases you are going to have a longer and more expensive commute as one of the downsides.

Hmm. North Fulton suburbs would argue that they subsidize the rest of Fulton. Not arguing here, because I don't which is true. The suburbs also generally don't want to subsidize intown transit. Now, I think we should all be one region for all personally, but you'll get arguments coming back on this one.

[PT 3000]

I think the TSPLOST would have passed if people weren't getting the impression that our leaders were including their pet projects in with what was really needed to help ease congestion on our roadways.

[noah]

Bingo. For a large portion of residents in the metro it was mistrust in government and how they would spend the money (read: wasteful spending) that caused many to vote against it. Unfortunately it seems about weekly that we read articles about government waste.

Originally Posted by PT 3000

I think the TSPLOST would have passed if people weren't getting the impression that our leaders were including their pet projects in with what was really needed to help ease congestion on our roadways.

[cwkimbro]

Originally Posted by jsvh

I am still very much for transportation investment. But I think we need to be smart about it. I think in most cases a given area (or better the users) of the transportation should be putting up the money. I don't think a blanket, forced spending campaign for the region is what we need. I think each area should focus on their own initiatives.

Edit: And I also think those in the "suburbs" should not be subsidizing transit in the city that they do not use.

You're still not addressing the problem that the traditional existing suburbs aren't subsidizing anyone... whether through traditional state funds of TSPLOST.

As far as a force spending campaign... eh...

A long line of argumentation no one talks about...

The state and ARC has a list of plans that need to happen over 30-40 years to accomodate projected growth. The designs are used as a mix of outward expansion and increaseing density (mixed-use communities). They then have professionals analyze what the transportation needs are.

The 10 years TSPLOST tax mostly had projects from that list to accomodate those goals. It wasn't enough to fulfill them, but it was only a 10 year tax too.

It wasn't a blanket forced spending campaign... That is the kind of rhetoric we need to step away from. It isn't healthy. It was a list of projects mostly set to help us accommodate those listed needs in the long-run.

Love it or hate it...It was a tax designed to build public projects.... just like any other public projects.

Without this tax or any other taxing... we still can only build about 20% of the projects needed to accommodate future growth.

It hasn't made us smarter. We aren't putting our efforts into anything we weren't already doing.

[kferq]

Originally Posted by jsvh

Edit: And I also think those in the "suburbs" should not be subsidizing transit in the city that they do not use.

People are interconnected and the availability of transit and roads have positive effects in distant regions.

Let us change the question: Should people in the Suburbs subsidize intown transit that they do use?

If transit reduces the number of cars on the road making commuting easier for the people in the suburbs, should they pay for that benefit?

Should people in the cities pay for roads in the Suburbs that they use? What about that those that they do not use?

If transit or roads increase the economic development of the region, who should pay for that?

Is it good stewardship of tax money to offer tax breaks to companies building new facilities?

Is it good stewardship of tax money to offer roads and transit to serve those facilities and/or make the area more attractive to business?

While the TSPLOST list was flawed, I reject the idea that it is inappropriate to spend money on projects which aid the economic development of the entire region. I pay for roads in the suburbs that I do not use because they help economic activity. People in North Fulton pay for transit that they seldom use, because it helps economic activity. We are a region and we need to start acting like one before we start losing ground to other regions.