OK. So, I was totally off-base with the impetus of this whole I-20 resolution before the Decatur City Commission this evening.
After listening to the conversation at tonight’s meeting, it became clear that the real issue at hand in bringing up a resolution wasn’t about financial support for an I-20 transit option, as I had previously thought, it was about taking a public stand regarding the transit options still on MARTA’s table to build a rail line out I-20. Though there’s nothing suggesting this on MARTA’s I-20 East alternatives website (the map above is their most recently posted “option 2” from May 2011), according to a lively discussion at city hall last night, heavy rail option #2 would leave East Lake Station and tunnel under Oakhurst on its way to I-20.
Now, as the Mayor pointed out during the conversation, heavy rail option #3, which runs from Indian Creek Station to Wesley Chapel Road, is the one on the Transportation Investment Act draft project list to the tune of $225 million. Heavy rail option #2, which would run under Oakhurst and wouldn’t even stop inside the city limits by the sounds of it, has not seen that kind of financial support and according to a comment from Mayor Pro-Tem Baskett, MARTA acknowledged in their presentation to the Commission two weeks ago that they knew Decatur residents would be opposed to that.
However, both south-side commissioners expressed a desire to pass the resolution officially supporting heavy-rail option #3 from Indian Creek to Wesley Chapel, publicly stating Decatur’s opposition to option #2. This comment from Commission Kecia Cunningham sums up the sentiment…
“And to think that we will be silent about what may be happening in Oakhurst, I mean just the whole notion that [tunneling under Oakhurst is] being batted around, and MARTA not come to Oakhurst, MARTA not come to the commissioners who represent that part of the city, tells me that we’re not really part of their thought process…I don’t know about you guys, but when they talked to us last month that was the first that I was told specifically that Oakhurst was involved. And just the notion of that makes me very concerned and I think it’s important for us to…say, there is an option out there that doesn’t have such an awful impact on the city of Decatur, on Oakhurst.”
In the end, the resolution was passed unanimously by the commission, stating support for heavy rail option #3.
But this has only just begun. First off, we need to see a dang map of the revised/new (?) option #2. I’ll see if I can get a scan.
All this talk of tunneling means big bucks and they are going to have to build this (if it ever happens) and the Emory extension with as few dollars as possible. I would expect that both of these projects will have to use at grade construction on existing right of way. If they do go with anything more it will not happen until 20 years out due to budgetary constraints.
MARTA’s TIA proposals don’t necessarily describe the LPA. Everyone needs to have/gain that understanding.
I am troubled by pols taking a position before the option is analyzed and optimized.
Indeed, the public feedback to MARTA so far has been overwhelmingly in favor of an alignment that runs straight to downtown (58% according to their latest information). An extension from Indian Creek is a distant second (28%), and the tunnel under Edgewood or Oakhurst is nearly universally hated (14%).
The TIA process, on the other hand, has a decent chance of forcing MARTA to build the extension from Indian Creek regardless of the fact that nearly 2/3s of stakeholders want to go straight downtown instead.
Why do you think that’s a “decent” chance? If the total line cost – not just the first phase – will be several billion dollars, you think maybe as much as a half billion dollars would be sacrificed to countermand the LPA?
I’m inclined to believe that MARTA separated M-022 because the service deliverable was deemed distinct. Was it also the outcome of the earlier I-20 East study that selected BRT?
I don’t have the original proposal (from before ARC rewrote them) in front of me, but I thought M-022 pretty much spelled out a short rail spur near Turner Field that collected BRT riders from I-20.
Also, while I completely support your attempt to rally support for any particular option, I would not assume that any LPA process that precedes a new funding source to be exempt from a legal challenge.
The TIA process has a decent chance of forcing MARTA to build rail from Indian Creek to Wesley Chapel regardless of the LPA because the law was written very strictly to prevent money designated for one project from being used on another. The I-20 East project that seems likely to get TIA funding is “TIA-M-023, Indian Creek to Wesley Chapel.” Because that alignment is explicitly specified, the law will require the money to be spent on that particular alignment, regardless of the LPA.
The only reason I said “has a decent chance” instead of “is an absolute certainty” is that TIA-M-023 may still get only partially funded, in which case they wouldn’t have enough money to build any rail and the point would be moot.
TIA-M-022, “downtown to Candler Road” would be just that: a project that would start vaguely in “downtown” — which is flexible enough to mean either going straight to Five Points past Turner Field, connecting to the Edgewood Streetcar or Beltline, or even tunneling under Kirkwood — and then building transit to Candler Road. The mode is not specified, but the cost estimates assume light rail (not BRT).
The TIA process has a decent chance of forcing MARTA to build rail from Indian Creek to Wesley Chapel regardless of the LPA because the law was written very strictly to prevent money designated for one project from being used on another. The I-20 East project that seems likely to get TIA funding is “TIA-M-023, Indian Creek to Wesley Chapel.” Because that alignment is explicitly specified, the law will require the money to be spent on that particular alignment, regardless of the LPA.
The only reason I said “has a decent chance” instead of “is an absolute certainty” is that TIA-M-023 may still get only partially funded, in which case they wouldn’t have enough money to build any rail and the point would be moot.
TIA-M-022, “downtown to Candler Road” would be just that: a project that would start vaguely in “downtown” — which is flexible enough to mean either going straight to Five Points past Turner Field, connecting to the Edgewood Streetcar or Beltline, or even tunneling under Kirkwood — and then building transit to Candler Road. The mode is not specified, but the cost estimates assume light rail (not BRT).
The short (heavy rail) spur to Turner Field you’re thinking of is TIA-M-021, and (as far as I know) would not be a connection to BRT, but rather the first phase of an HRT line all the way to Stonecrest.
No.
Wonder if they would just gloss over something like that, if they were going to be dealing with Druid Hills instead of Oakhurst?
And while we’re at it, just no to anything new with MARTA at this point.
Last week they said they were looking at $3 billion in debt without a clue as to where the money was going to come from. They cannot manage what they have, and what they are facing already. They cannot manage anything new.
Yes, but honestly, most rail-related proposals seem to proceed on the idea of “just build it, who cares if we have the money.” It’s a recipe for disaster.
Did you come to a better understanding of the problem, or are you railing about something you don’t really understand?
If you’re interested in debating with me, don’t speak to me like that again. I don’t who that approach works with, but certainly not me.
Wow. Good comeback after a beyond snarky comment. I’ve got to remember this response for those situations in which it seems like the commenter is more into wounding somebody than advocating a position.
Dude, it’s comments like this that make even people who generally agree with your agenda not like you…
My agenda, supposing I have one, is that our citizens have informed opinions. If someone goes from inquisitive to dictatorial, I’d like to understand that transformation.
Otherwise, I’d like someone to highlight the omission, and If I was presumptive, this is why:
http://www.decaturmetro.com/2011/09/26/ajc-poll-metro-voters-narrowly-approve-of-transportation-tax/#comment-142708
Can you explain how her opinion is uninformed? Rebeccab has based an opinion on actual information re: MARTA’s existing, unfunded operational needs. What is the information you believe to be missing/inaccurate, or do you simply disagree?
I think we should not be quick to rule MARTA as incompetent – or even assign most of the blame there – when Bev Scott says that MARTA could spend $2.9 billion in coming years to rehabilitate its infrastructure. (On other points, maybe, but not over this one, which is not to be confused with a debate over allocating maintenance costs between operating and capital budgets.)
In an ideal world, such outlays would be rightly accounted for and religiously funded. It might have been virtuous for MARTA to have banked everything it could, but you should seriously doubt that that action would be rewarded – much more likely it would be punished.
What about its peers? I would be surprised if they run a surplus and/or if they bank any money. There are several of the same era, and they will have similar needs.
What about other public transportation infrastructure? There’s no series of deposit accounts corresponding to each overpass that will need to be replaced eventually.
Bev Scott is doing what circumstance forces her to do; she’s reminding us that we have public infrastructure that doesn’t pay for itself directly. The context of difficult financing and fewer/smaller grants applies as much or more to public transit as it does to public roads.
There’s not a fact in that post that would render anyone else’s opinion uninformed. It’s just that you disagree.
You’ve again taken my words from two different remarks and mushed them together. Regarding Rebeccab’s forceful opinion, I questioned the depth of understanding in support of her conclusion. I alluded to a portion of what I believe is missing from the (ironically non-existent) conversation, at your request.
I’m happy to simply disagree about who gets how much blame for this or that unfunded liability, but that’s quite different from saying transit in Atlanta – regardless of peers, competition, and politics – must budget full replacement costs as a sign of competence or investment criteria.
You can tell me that you would be praising MARTA if it had stashed away $2,000,000,000 while operating at 30% cost recovery, but there’s no chance I would think you sincere.
Please take the last word; I’ll say no more.
How charitable of you, in several respects.
You can feel free to leave my name out of any of your future posts and I’ll do the same. But since you needed to go there yet again…no, you did not question anything. My opinion (the one you linked to) was clear, coherent, and so was my logic. Just as DEM suggested, you just happen to not agree with it. And instead of actually challenging it, you chose the easy, cheap-shot route.
I really try not carry my disagreements from one posting to the next because we will never all agree, all of the time. But since you’re intent on going from one board to the next making nasty comments, let’s just do each other a favor and ignore each other from here on out.
Oh and btw, thanks for your link below bolstering my case.
“Metro Board approves…spending plan to fund”
vs.
MARTA
“even if next year’s transportation referendum passes, the metro area’s largest transit system will still face $2.3 billion in unfunded maintenance needs over the next decade. We do not have an answer of how it’s going to be funded,”
PLAN being keyword. Metro knows how they intend to pay for the things that they need. MARTA does not. They are $3 billion in debt without the slightest clue where the money will come from. They think they can get $600 million from the tax IF it passes, what about the other BILLIONS?
They need a firm plan to deal with the problem that are facing, before they take on any new projects. She didn’t say, they are working on anything. She counted $600 million in funds, that are from an iffy source at best, and the rest is up in the air. This is just an unacceptable response when you are asking the public to invest in you, with more tax money than you already receive.
And imagine, that all your snark, still didn’t change my opinion.
For the record then…
That MARTA figure is an estimate of forward costs for state of good repair; it is not the same as their existing bonded debt.
The WMATA figure is money for like purpose and is sourced largely from Federal earmarks.
BTW I’m sorry my remark was insensitive of your feelings. I wasn’t thinking of them; I was in a rush and a bit peeved. It wasn’t meant to be personal or to wound, despite appearing so.
(Bobby- Sending you a hug, along with a teensy head thumping for the feathers rufflling you’re still managing to do! Gosh knows you’re devoted to fighting the good fight for Marta, and I sure appreciate it! Hang it there! :0)
(Bobby-I meant to say, “Hang in there!” :0)
If anyone cares, here’s a note from WMATA also known as the D.C. Metro, to which MARTA is often compared.
“Metro Board approves $5 billion, six-year capital spending plan to fund vital safety improvements, infrastructure upgrades”
http://www.wmata.com/about_metro/news/PressReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=4529
Thanks for clearing that up. It’s commendable to want people to have informed opinions. Silly me, I guess I was railing about something I didn’t really understand either, because I was under the impression that you only cared about people having the exact same opinion as you do!
Noted. I responded because I took your remark seriously and thought a response was warranted.
I usually try to cut MARTA a little slack because of the poor financial support it has gotten from the metro area and state. But it is shocking that MARTA not include our commissioners in floating #2 (ha ha).
Question: Was there any discussion, presentation of who owns the current right of way for option 3 that was officially supported? In other words, how feasible would even #3 be when/if we get down to details?
The discussion said Option 2 would leave from East Lake station? The slide set on the MARTA link says Edgewood/Candler Park. Why does the route have to go east along MARTA and then through (under) Oakhurst? Why can’t it go more directly southeast? (Of course a direct southeast route would affect other neighborhoods adversely instead of Oakhurst, but just wondering.)
Why are we supporting this resolution? How do any of them help the city of Decatur? In fact, insofar as they risk pulling money away from the projects between Decatur and Emory, aren’t these bad for the city? While I generally support MARTA and rail projects, I think the city should only pass a resolution supporting this if it’s in the city’s interest.
Good questions. I don’t think anyone has really addressed why the resolution was solicited.
Though I agree that our commission’s primary concern should be Decatur, they have to consider the good of the whole as well, do they not? I imagine this makes Mayor Floyd’s position rather uncomfortable. If every local gov’t part of this TIA debate put on the blinders and ONLY supported the projects that benefited itself (and as unfortunately happens, they begin to slam the similarly selfish views of neighbors) then it seems you’ve created a fight instead of a discussion about legitimate alternatives. And this in the context of a metro region that, as far as I am aware, has never undertaken such a process.
Again, I get the Decatur allegiance, but I also think it is fair to look at this without such an attachment (now I’m gettin all Buddhist up in this…)
I’m not sure I agree with you if you’re saying the job of our city government requires they be concerned with the welfare of the entire region. I think parties can end up compromising when recognizing that their role is to look after their own self interest. I think of the city government’s job as like a lawyer. They’re representatives. Shouldn’t they be representing us and looking after our interests?
I hate to say that, because it sounds selfish. And in looking at this issue individually, I’m fine to vote for a tax that benefits the region and not just our city. But I want our representatives to be representing us, not south Dekalb.
The public discussions surrounding this issue over the last two commission meetings have been hard to follow to say the least – I think Deanne would agree? – but from what I recall Mayor Pro-Tem Baskett saying at the commission meeting last month it had something to do with MARTA believing that endorsements from cities would help a project get approved.
Sure. I get why Dekalb wants Decatur to sign onto this resolution. I just don’t understand why our city did. We’re not in the area that gets served by the new line.
It seems either there’s some politicking going on behind the scenes, which I could understand, or our city representatives are trying to represent people in S Dekalb, which they don’t.
An article you linked to today makes me more concerned about this than I would be, because it suggests that some I-20 project proponents are targetting the Clifton corridor as a place to get funds for this additional project. I think the latter project is really important to the city and so supporting the I-20 project, if it endangers funding for the Clifton project, is against the city’s best interest.
Here’s your link back at you: http://saportareport.com/blog/2011/10/emory-cdc-cousinsgables-development-would-benefit-from-planned-transit-line/
That article says: “This line [clifton corridor] has come into political play as DeKalb County officials jockey for more money to establish a transit line along I-20, in south DeKalb. The issue is likely to come up at Thursday’s planned meeting of the Atlanta Region Transportation Roundtable. DeKalb County Commissioner Lee May has suggested reallocating money from the Clifton Corridor to I-20.”
Maybe the mayor promised to support I-20 so long as its proponents didn’t go after the Clifton corridor?
The resolution basically says, “Out of the I-20 options presented to us, this is the one that best benefits Decatur’s residents.” The Commissioners made it clear that this isn’t a I-20 project vs.Clifton Corridor position, nor does it lock them into an I-20 position if a better option is proposed later. They’re just stating where they stand on it before the big Transportation Meeting on Oct. 15th.
(Seems very smart to have it on the record based on what’s transpired so far. Not only was there the last minute clue-in re Option #2, but the slight to Oakhurst is even more egregious because MARTA did meet with the Kirkwood neighborhood on how they’d be impacted.)
Oh, that’s helpful. Thanks, Deanne.
Thanks, Deanne!
Glad to be able to clear up one bit of this complicated mess! Sure wish someone would explain Marta’s and the County Folks’ thinking!
I couldn’t make heads or tails of the first discussion! Talk about polite southern manners masking what was really going on! I’m guessing the Commissioners needed time to absorb it before commenting… You’re right that Jim Baskett did explain MARTA’s reasoning for wanting a resolution. (To me, he also seemed to favor the idea, which made his two attempts to pull back last night seem odd.)
I think you’re right about it taking time to absorb.
I agree with you up to a point. On the other hand, a rising tide lifts all boats. And I think that in general, our local and state governments (elected and appointed) are often severely hampered by a reflexive tendency to look at everything in terms of “us versus them.” My lawyer should do precisely that, as my advocate. But IMO our representatives should always be seeking ways to advocate for the common good, the larger good, the long-term good. If everybody is only willing to support initiatives that benefit themselves specifically and directly, and politicians aren’t willing to advocate for and commit to broader, longer-term visions, then nothing will get done and we’ll wind up …. well, come to think of it, that’s a big reason why things are such a mess now.
Wow! This discussion was so unexpected– when it came up last meeting, there was no hint that such a dastardly option was on the table! I wish more folks attended or viewed the meetings just for times like this. Another great reason to live in Decatur: our City Folks who thoughtfully contemplate the issues before them, and aren’t afraid to speak from the heart while applying good common sense. Almost all of the Commission spoke to the importance of taking a stance even though it’s in conflict with what some Dekalb Commissioners and S. Dekalb leaders want. As Kecia Cunningham put it, to do otherwise would be unconscionable. (Not so impressive: Jim Baskett’s: “Why risk sticking our necks out now?” ) This resolution is absolutely the right thing to do.
It’s also the smart thing to do. Also discussed was the possibility that there may be there other options being proposed elsewhere. This lets the Commissioners endorse the option that best benefits Decatur residents. Attached to the resolution will be the MARTA Alternatives List that was presented by the MARTA folks to provide the context for the Commission’s decision.
A few reasons to support MARTA”s efforts for a line out to Mall at Stonecrest. DeKalb has been paying a penny tax for years-an extension that would benefit more of the county is a decent return for that investment. If the extension encourages some transit oriented development and more folks use it, it might reduce some of the pass through traffic in Decatur. The option we voted to support last night would include express trains with Decatur being the last stop before Five Points. That would benefit our residents as they would have a faster train option into Atlanta, the airport, etc.
Do you have any details on implementing that express service? I am doubtful that it would be practical – though it might be necessary to distinguish express/faster from express/full.
It could be done – there is a siding track between the main tracks east of the Candler Park station which would allow trains to pass with proper scheduling and dispatching.
My doubt is on the practicality and not on the possibility.
Thanks, Fred. I’m all for reducing pass through traffic, but I think speed bumps and lower speed limits would accomplish that more effectively.
I don’t understand the argument that Dekalb voters have paid a penny tax for years and therefore this is a return on that investment. I thought that money was used to fund MARTA and so the existing rail and bus system was the return on that investment. It sounds like Dekalb wants to get paid twice for the same investment to me.
Most people don’t realize that there is a provision already built into the MARTA east line for a spur. it is between the East Lake and Edgewood-Candler Park stations.
http://world.nycsubway.org/us/atlanta/marta-provisions.html
Fascinating. Not sure why the Emory, N. Druid Hills line is called Tucker-N. DeKalb but I’ve never really understood where Tucker is. I think I must go through it sometimes without realizing it.
Tucker roughly begins just outside 285 at Lavista and Lawrenceville Highway.
None of these include to me what is by far the most workable solution: branching off from Avondale Station to the north along the CSX line to Stone Mountain. The Avondale station was built with this extension in mind (with multiple platforms), the CSX right of way that follows Ponce into Clarkston has ample width in most places, it will give transit access to relatively dense neighborhoods in Clarkston and Stone Mountain, it will give Decatur a second train service (presumably the Green Line), and it will give tourists and residents alike a transit option to reach the mountain and state park. In addition to all of these pretty substantial benefits, if you follows the CSX line further to the east, where does it end up? Stonecrest Mall.
There’s a reason the majority of the original MARTA system was built following existing freight lines: it’s the cheapest way of doing it, and it serves lots of historic population centers in the process. We should take this lesson from the system’s original design when we are considering its expansion. And it’s only about 3 miles longer than the option of tunneling out of the Candler Park Station to the south.
Frankly, this is the problem with trying to include reasonable solutions in this unreasonable T-Splost proposal. You’re planning in order to try to win some sort of mass appeal rather than electing someone to plan. It’s those inefficiencies, etc. that make a representative gov’t preferable to a democracy.
It’s lunacy not to run the I-20 line west from the West End Station, past Turner Field, Grant Park, E. ATL, and out to Stonecrest via I-20 and then connect that line to the Blue line using Heavy Rail roughly around 285 eventually connecting with the Gold and Orange line in N. DeKalb via 285. and connecting Emory via Avondale/Lindbergh. You’d be serving what we already know are existing traffic patterns while encouraging development in the central core and along the developing edge cities of Sandy Springs, Dunwoody, Chamblee/Doraville, and Northlake/Tucker. Add in an eventual line to N. Fulton roughly along 400 (following the livability model of using town/employment centers like Roswell, Alpharetta, and Windward as stops) and you’ve got a pretty robust heavy rail line that serves commuters going any direction.
Eventually, Gwinnett with its shifting demos and increasingly long commutes will have to get on board. Cobb probably will, too.
Seriously, it’s not that hard. Clearly, the layout of the interstates are popular or at least have created travel patterns in to town and out. You don’t need to re-create the wheel here. Unfortunately, the ‘need’ to pull in Cobb County and to fund new lines without the state legislature ‘raising taxes’ has created a climate where politics has to come before practical solutions.
“a climate where politics has to come before practical solutions”
Unfortunately, that’s what the whole T-Splost thing is. It’s the state, in the guise of the legislature, not having the political guts to come up with a long-term comprehensive solution, like raising the gas tax, and passing the whole thing down to the local governments so they can say they did something.
“It’s lunacy not to run the I-20 line west from the West End Station, past Turner Field, Grant Park, [and] E. ATL”
You have no idea how much I, as an East Atlanta resident, appreciate that. Thank you!
Now, please consider coming out to the MARTA public meeting this Thursday at 6:00 PM at Trees Atlanta (225 Chester Avenue Atlanta, GA 30316) and tell MARTA that! We need all the help we can get!
Be very wary of tunneling. The folks on Sycamore Street and at Swanton Hill can tell you what a nightmare it is having trains with perpetually out-of-round wheels running at high speed underneath their houses. MARTA does not have the money to maintain its rolling stock to the level necessary to prevent excessive vibration, a critical consideration when running trains through shallow tunnels underneath residential areas.
Does anyone know how to tell where exactly said tunnel be built? From what I’ve read, it looks like they are planning to use existing MARTA right of ways, but I also saw something saying that there would be 28 residential or commercial displacements on option 2. This is from the chart here:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=dBKvzNO%2bOTVqLI5Z8S0PXw%3d%3d
I think this link might work better:
https://secure.surveymonkey.com/_resources/22992421/4d863c43-c654-4bae-9318-dce05f940f23.jpg
Your neighbors to the southeast (i.e., us here in East Atlanta and Grant Park) are trying to fight as hard as we can for alternative #1, which would come straight in to downtown and provide rail service to Turner Field (as well as our neighborhoods, of course).
If your opinion is “no tunnel” — which is perfectly understandable — PLEASE consider supporting option #1 rather than option #3.
I’m with you Jack. I support #1.