Two City of Decatur Projects Make Exec Committee’s Transportation List
Decatur Metro | August 18, 2011While many in the Emory area are jazzed that the Clifton Corridor MARTA line was one of the second largest recipiant of transit funds allocated by the Atlanta Transportation Exec Committee, “E” points out in a comment that two smaller projects, which made the list apply specifically to the City of Decatur.
The first: “Decatur to Clifton Corridor ‐ Transit Connectivity and Safety Improvements” would receive $5 million – instead of the $10 million requested. Here are a few deets from the project submission…
Commerce Drive, Clairemont Avenue and Church Street will be redesigned to provide safe bicycle and pedestrian facilities like sidewalks, bicycle lanes and streetscaping. The intersections of Church/Commerce and Clairemont/Commerce will be reconfigured to reduce vehicular congestion and increase pedestrian safety through the use of roundabouts, narrowed pedestrian crossings and/or improved signal timing. The design of improvements for Church Street and the two intersections at Commerce Avenue will be complete by summer of 2012.
The second: “US 278 (College Avenue) from Adair Street to North Clarendon Avenue ‐ Corridor Improvements“, which spans Decatur, DeKalb and Avondale, would also receive $5 million – instead of the $8,281,000 requested. A few details that project submission…
The project consists of adding bike lanes, sidewalk, crossings to transit and businesses, infrastructure improvements to shoulders and pavement, as well as enhancements such as street lighting, landscaping. This project will be consistent with all design recommendations in the LCI’s of Avondale and Decatur. The project will also include the realignment of the intersection of Adair at the CSX RR crossing on the west end of the project. The intersecton improvement of College/Covington @ Clarendon will be included on the east end of the project. Improving traffic signal/ITS for the corridor and side streets.
Of course, these projects have to survive tinkering (or complete revision) by the full 21 member roundtable and still pass the 2012 public referendum before they have a chance to be built, but at this stage, it’s better to still be on the list than off!
Thanks to Ken Edelstein of Green Building Chronicle for helping me locate these projects this morning. He’s got a great synopsis of the transit “winners” and “losers” in the transportation penny sales tax game over on his site. (Spoiler Alert: The Clifton Corridor is a “winner”, though it will still have to figure out how to bridge a $400 million shortfall if approved)
Latest from Decaturish
I don’t think Edelstein’s post mentions what the total shortfall is and the pdf doesn’t say. 6.14 billion out of what estimated total to do these projects?
As for Decatur, are we allowed to scale back or combine the 10 mil on one project? Assuming we don’t have 8.3 mil lying around, would we need to leave 10 mil on the table?
Also I wonder if this will in fact, if not explicitly, be competing with SPLOST.
We need to be looking at more than a synopsis in our evaluation.
Now, from the perspective of Cobb county, I would omit the disadvantages amongst this selection of projects since Cobb appears to benefit handsomely.
I don’t disagree with your premise Bobby, though I’m less optimistic that we – as a region – could get anything “better” passed by the legislature and wider region.
You’re right – it took 5 years to pass the convoluted thing we did get. Parochialism reigns in Georgia. Here’s recent commentary on that subject: http://blogs.ajc.com/kyle-wingfield/2011/08/18/redistricting-spurs-re-examination-of-georgias-many-counties/
I don’t accept the ‘we can’t do any better’ or ‘there is no plan B’ premise. Anyone can vote for it if it’s good enough for them. I believe there are compelling arguments for citizens in DeKalb to reject the tax.
Also, I believe that the “regional” approach is a sales job. Well-intentioned people jumped on the “regional approach to transit” bandwagon years ago because it seemed easier than other measures to increase funding for transit, but I think the TIA implicitly favors building roads.
Well, right now the projects are 55% transit, 45% roads.
Steve, please don’t be silly.
I speak only the facts as they are now.
http://www.decaturmetro.com/2011/08/11/atlanta-roundtable-project-list-currently-allocating-58-of-funds-to-transit/#comment-131354
I would go along with you if you could pave me a road that details a plan that’s both more transit focused and has a chance of getting thru the legislature and by voters.
DM, you might similarly convince me that no better route can emerge.
Perhaps I was not clear; I meant to discriminate between the “we can’t do better” and “I believe this is the best option” arguments. I think it is likely that neither case will be factually proven and claims of certainty are unfounded.
“I would go along with you if you could pave me a road that details a plan that’s both more transit focused and has a chance of getting thru the legislature and by voters.”
I’ll throw things at the wall; you tell me what sticks.
I think elected officials in the big four should have argued the case for adopting guidelines that put 0.0% of the regional fund towards road capital.
Increments of transit lines would be separate projects. A second tier, spillover list would need to exist, with priorities set by competitive performance. The constrained list would under-promise (fully fund).
Big four voters would need to hear compelling possibilities for funding operations and lowering subsidy rates. New litigation would commence over para-transit obligations.
I have to hand it to Mayor Floyd.
I often wonder if Decatur residents realize how important he is to our success. His leadership and political connections are immeasurable when it comes to advancing the goals of our city and protecting our interests from the competing agendas of County and State politicians.
I hope when he retires as Mayor we throw him one helluva party – and I hope he is grooming his successor so we can continue our success.
Actually, doesn’t he have to stay unless we vote that he can leave? I don’t believe the community has agreed that he can retire.
I thought the Adair railroad crossing was already budgeted with City bonds?
When I voted for the bonds years ago, I thought it was on the list of what I voted for. The bonds passed, so where is the work? And why is more money needed?
10 000 000 / 6 100 000 000 = 0.00163934426
18 000 / 5 000 000 = 0.0036
What am I missing?
OK, after much deliberation, I think I finally figured out what these are.
First off, it seems like you’re only using one of the projects to determine the funding %. Why?
Secondly, you might be missing the $700 million Clifton Corridor project.
I’ve got a report ready on this if you’d like to take a look.
Decatur has two project each funded at $5mil. TIA‐DK‐007 & TIA‐DK‐022
Last I checked the Clifton Corridor is not in Decatur. I’m sure there are other things I’m missing, but I don’t think Clifton is one of them.
Can you explain why you don’t think Decatur residents would benefit from the Clifton Corridor project? Especially if it were light rail and connected up with the Avondale MARTA Station (which is within the Decatur city limits)
Would love to see the report.
Everyone benefits from every project in some regard. The question is simply how does Decatur compare.
How is it simple? You just said that everyone benefits from every project. But someone in Fayette County won’t see the same benefit from the Clifton Corridor as someone from Decatur. How are you weighing the larger projects that benefit larger areas?
In terms of transit and roads, what is inside or outside of the city limits means little. I’m sure Mayor Floyd knows how much the Clifton project could mean to Decatur.
“What projects specifically benefit Decatur?”
“The Clifton and I-20 south lines deal with the largest job center in the metro area. There’s Emory, the VA, the CDC — there’s 30,000 jobs there now. In 15 years, there are likely to be more. That’s one area of the economy that is still strong. Although some of the construction money will be spent on outside companies, most of the workers will be here.” -Mayor Floyd
http://decatur.patch.com/articles/wheels-heels-decatur-mayor-on-transportation-vote
Hey, Pat. Until your report, can you do a math for dummies explanation of your initial calculation? Given the tenor of the conversation, I think I must be reading it wrong because, to me, it looks like it’s saying that trans spending region-wide would be $.0016 per person but in Decatur it would be $.0036 per person, more than twice as much.
Is it saying we’re lining up to get more per person than average or less? Thanks.
really?
?
His analysis says Decatur would receive only .16% of funding (if only looking at Decatur specific projects), even though the city’s population makes up .36% of the MSA population, I believe.
Thanks, DM. Was totally misreading what each figure represented.
To not include the Clifton project in the calculations for Decatur doesn’t make sense, in my opinion. There is no question that this would benefit Decatur. I would like to see the numbers for DeKalb as a whole, however.
A back-of-the-napkin calculation using Pat’s ratios shows that DeKalb is .1384 of the population, while the funding for DeKalb projects–NOT COUNTING ROADS—is .1534. Is that enough to compensate for DeKalb already paying a penny for MARTA? Hmm…
BTW, the above number (.1534) does not include money allocated for general MARTA improvements, which could also benefit DeKalb.
Looks like the 0.00163934426 (0.16%) is the percentage of dollars allotted to projects in Decatur, and the 0.0036 (0.36%) is Decatur’s population relative to the population of the served area. Is that right, Pat? So Scott, if you’re trying to figure out how much per person it comes out like this:
Total 6.14 bil/5 mil = $1228/person
Decatur 10 mil/18K = $555/person
Thanks, Judd. I require my math to be spoon fed. Preferably with unbleached sugar.
______(__)
Thanks for posting the links to projects, but they don’t open; could you please fix it, thanks.
WTH? Someone moved the PDFs.
It looks like one “x” was added to the URL. Here is a live link for the Clairemont project:
http://documents.atlantaregional.com/tia/PDFx/TIA-DK-007.pdf
“The intersections of Church/Commerce and Clairemont/Commerce will be reconfigured to reduce vehicular congestion and increase pedestrian safety through the use of roundabouts…”
Does this imply that there will be roundabouts at both intersections? I’m not so sure I agree with this plan, even if it was just one of those intersections. I usually like roundabouts, but I don’t think they’re appropriate in every situation.
That aside, this is great news!
I’ve heard no discussion of roundabouts at those intersections, so I don’t know where you got that idea. Ask Amanda Thompson what types of things may be done at those places.
No need. Amanda brought this up when discussing our hypothetical Ponce/Nelson Ferry roundabout HERE.
“The good news is that the City will kick off the re-design of the Commerce/Clairemont Avenue and Commerce/Church Street intersections within the next couple of weeks. Roundabouts are one of the options that will be considered. Check the Decatur Focus and http://www.decaturga.com for information on the dates for public input.”
Remember that the whole process will be made much more complex and take much longer because GDOT will have to be involved at every step, since a State designated highway (GA 155) is involved.
Glad to hear the designs are still being considered.
As much as I think roundabouts are excellent for car traffic, I personally have not been too impressed with how they work for pedestrians. I currently live in Brooklyn, NY (once a Decaturite, always a Decaturite), where there are a few roundabouts in very urban neighborhoods. They tend to be intimidating for pedestrians, as well as bicyclists. While they might help traffic problems, they’re still very auto-centric, and, I would argue, even more so than a standard traffic light. In addition, I have noticed that there are very few store-front businesses that face these roundabouts. People just don’t enjoy walking next to these things.
Considering the potential for future pedestrian-friendly commercial redevelopment at the Commerce/Clairemont and Commerce/Church intersections, I am in favor of a more straightforward approach: wider sidewalks, squared street corners, improved signal timing, etc. These spots are only 1-2 blocks away from the Decatur square, so there’s no reason they shouldn’t be similarly “urban” like the rest of downtown’s core.
Okay, I’ve said enough! I would like to hear people’s thoughts.
I think I’ve remarked on Commerce in months past. I’d like a clear choice: keep it biased toward cars or revert completely to town center streets.
Personally, I would rather leave it and focus on transforming other streets (low speed, retail, bike/ped facilities).
I would strongly oppose a roundabout on Clairemont; we need not lower the feasibility of running enhanced-bus/streetcar that connects between Decatur and Chamblee (and maybe Clifton-VA) MARTA stations.
Commerce Drive was created a long time back to serve as a Decatur bypass. The original plan, as I understand it, was to have a circumferential street so any through traffic would bypass downtown Decatur and go around instead. For a variety of fairly obvious reasons, the north-south part was never completely implemented, but the east-west was and that’s is the reason it’s here today. That’s why it is a big, intimidating, mass of pavement. Discouraging automobile traffic on Commerce would produce even more congestion on Ponce, so any design must be carefully considered.
As for a streetcar on Clairemont, you’d better have the bars on your doors and windows checked before you campaign for that, as most people along that route were pretty vehement 10 or so years ago about never wanting to see that happen.
There are already buses. I have said on a few occasions that a trackless trolley would probably be my preference.
Shall I lobby DOT for an additional lane instead?
I think you’re right about Commerce’s use as a Decatur bypass. However, Decatur will grow, and streets that were originally intended for bypasses might need to be reconsidered. Drivers’ expectations will need to adjust, as well. That being said, I think Commerce can still serve its purpose as a bypass while still having some ped-friendly developments and without being such an intimidating mass of pavement. I think there could be a happy medium out there.
By the way, these conversations make me really miss the old Atlanta Street/Avenue, parallel to Broad St/Ponce De Leon. It would have been another nice Ponce alternative through downtown. Also, notice the streets that are now Commerce Avenue: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/5_OCT_1879_Decatur,_GA_Map,_DeKalb_Historical_Society.jpg
That is, Commerce Drive.
I noticed a project on Glenwood from Candler to Covington Hwy got funded. Does anyone what those improvements are? I live in Belvedere Park (adjacent to Glenwood) so I am awfully curious.
Without know for sure, it may be things similar to what was done on Glenwood west of Candler a few years ago.
Fix the sidewalks and add new lampposts? That would be nice. Thank you for the response.
Is there a graphic of what rapid bus transit will look like? Is that a dedicated lane to be built or using existing roadway?
BRT is generally thought of as conventional buses running at least part of the way in dedicated right-of-way with no other traffic.
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is amorphous. It’s usually a modern, low-floor (or raised platform stops), wheeled vehicle with well-defined stop-stations and some (or sometimes zero) enhanced facilities (e.g. dedicated road pads, intersection priority, signal influence, dedicated lanes, park-n-ride lots).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit
I like this BRT business. While street cars are cool, this is a much more cost-effective option.
BRT may be a little cheaper on the front end, but in the long run is more expensive than rail-based modes when you take into account maintenance of roadways, replacement of vehicles, capacity of vehicles, etc. Also, BRT usually doesn’t produce the economic development impact as a rail-based system, because it’s easy to move buses to a different piece of pavement, while rails are pretty permanent and encourage more permanent surrounding development.
It’s important to evaluate amortized capital cost per passenger, O&M, and the marginal cost of new riders.
I think the biggest problem with BRT is the amorphous term. It’s not uncommon for insider jargon to seem ambiguous to outsiders, but I’m inclined to believe that BRT, as used in the United States, is intentionally misleading (to feed the industry’s professionals).