TSPLOST has failed. So, what's next?
In Cobb, the transportation referendum received a "no" vote from roughly 70 percent of voters. However, many had various reasons for voting no. Voters in all the other 10 counties included in the Metro Atlanta TSPLOST rejected the referendum as well.
Throughout all the debates, forums and rallies, the one thing TSPLOST supporters and opponents agreed on was that something needs to be done about the transportation problems in Metro Atlanta.
It's just that no one has decided exactly what that would be.
There are several reasons for voters' opposition to TSPLOST:
Most people just didn't want any more taxes, especially during this economic downturn.
Some like Ron Sifen, a transportation activist and Vinings resident, supported the concept of TSPLOST, but not the project list.
Others, such as former Cobb Chairman candidate Mike Boyce, wanted to wait until Cobb completed its alternative analysis study before voting for the transportation tax.
Additionally, others felt like the TSPLOST simply would not benefit their community. District 4 Commission Candidate Lisa Cupid said, "Just because jobs are coming (as a result of TSPLOST) doesn't mean jobs are coming to us."
The Georgia NAACP said the transportation tax would not benefit minority- or women-owned businesses.
Now that TSPLOST has failed, what's Plan B? What are your suggestions and ideas for improving traffic problems in Metro Atlanta? Tell us in the comments below.
For any and all of these reasons, it failed, so what's Plan B? Is there a Plan B?
Various elected officials, organization leaders and stakeholders claimed there was no Plan B to TSPLOST. Politifact Georgia deemed that claim to be "mostly false" in a recent assessment.
During a July 23 TSPLOST forum in East Cobb, State Rep. Ed Setzler, who chairs the Cobb delegation, said, "We can come back in two years with a project list that's worthy of our support."
Senate Majority Leader Chip Rogers (R-Woodstock) said flat-out, "There is a Plan B."
The Atlanta TEA Party and Sierra Club have already drafted a plan B, which includes allowing local governments to form fiscal partnerships with GDOT.
Sifen wrote in a recent Marietta Daily Journal column that Plan B must begin by "establishing sensible criteria." One of his criterion was, "Regional road projects must be designed to reduce commute times in corridors that serve at least 60,000 car trips per day, and where traffic flow is impacted for at least 5 miles."
What criteria would be needed for you to vote for a TSPLOST Plan B?
The only good thing I see coming in the meantime is that for every region that rejected T-SPLOST, local governments need to match all state projects 30% or they won't get done. That poison pill was written into the legislation. So that may mean the state won't spend as much on transportation (since local governments will only match what they deem worthy) and for the first time the DOT may build up some reserves that could come in handy when there's a need for a big project. Unfortunately, federal earmarks are probably going to vanish. Other than that, watch traffic get worse without any transit options for days we don't want to sit in traffic. I think the advocates will get the last laugh since although no one wins, we get to tell you "I told you so". Sadly, Cumberland's in trouble because it desperately needed transit to stay competitive with the Perimeter. Now it's probably going to be competing with Windward Parkway.
That's ridiculous. At 5mph, that means you'd be sitting in a car for 1hr just to go 5 miles. I can agree with a certain number of cars per day, but think the 5 miles thing is a bit too constraining. I also think regional projects can have value of consolidating high density development or relieving future congestion as well. I don't think people were thinking straight when they said it only needs to be to relieve existing congestion. Relieving future congestion from growth is valuable as well since that's pain we'll be feeling soon. For transit, I believe rail to any of the major employment, entertainment, or population centers is valuable. However, for population centers, I believe we need stations with large parking garages and on major arteries leading to West and East Cobb along with the central cities like Smyrna, Marietta, and Kennessaw. Town Center definitely needs transit because of all the growth in Cherokee county. Stopping in Cumberland isn't adequate long-term. I think the alternatives analysis is good. Hopefully, a commuter rail option on the CSX line will be considered. However, by most accounts that's more expensive.
Likewise, Town Center is an even bigger loser since although it's conceivable that the state will find a way to get transit to Cumberland, it's highly unlikely it'll make it all the way to Town Center.
My complaints with current mass transit. CCT buses, there is only one route serving our area, is erratic and too sparse to be of a benefit. The longest part of my commute when using mass transit was waiting on CCT buses either at the Holmes Transit station or the bus stops. It appears the posted schedules are merely suggestions. The buses run too infrequently to be of any benefit. Future state I am against rail projects for the reason that once a rail line is in place it is there to stay and the demographics of the areas served are always changing. It wouldn't be long before those stops could very well be vacant. You will have a train to nowhere then. One of the reason rail works in Europe so well is they are not as mobile as Americans are. (cont)
Work on connecting the burbs to the actual metro area itself, and it appears the biggest obstacle to this has been the various county transit systems themselves arguing over granting rights for buses to operate on their turf. If they can't work out their petty differences then other types of cooperation are sort of moot.
of all traffic tho, I know). Over six decades -- a convincing time to me -- Orlando has accomodated consistent traffic situations. How Disney World accomodates half a million passengers per month could provide some hope. They transport every minute a sizeable population ABOVE GROUND.... not in any lanes. Using the OVERHEAD MONORAILS monorails carefully solve monumental CONGESTION NEEDS. Say, a system of monorails covering metro Atlanta. Interstates might have four: Two down the middle of packed lanes, two above the shoulders already paved. In place of existing concrete block barriers down the middle, construct concrete elevated rails above traffic. Along 400, install passengers rails between lanes. Marta did it. Consider two over the medians, two each side over the shoulders. Seems possible to use a concept that's been tried/proven to overcome massive congestions daily for billions of visitors, just in one sizeable locaton -- Disney World with it's nine(always packed, they assure you) resorts. Select a dozen hub locations throughtout metro Atlanta to test it's effectiveness. Maybe even extend this system to lead elsewhere(i.e., Cumming-Buckhead, where those riding monorails over 400 transfer to Marta; Cartersville-State Capital for incoming passengers over I75). The purpose: merge monorails with the city's trans routes already there. Possibly.
Hey this looks like something an aspiring Georgia Tech grad student could sink his teeth into.
So there is no plan B ... unless the proponents were just lying.