Arguably, there has been nothing more highly debated than Gwinnett County’s transportation issues. However, citizens can all agree that no one likes waiting in bumper-to-bumper traffic every morning and afternoon. Yet, in a region of nearly 5.6 million people with as many as 78 percent of working adults commuting in car, one would expect some serious traffic problems. The reality is that our society is calling for their representatives in government to hear their voices.
Primarily, the options local and regional governments for Gwinnett County have been considering are 1) Build more roads and 2) Invest into light-rail transit options. Here are some clarifications on recent myths circulating around that may affect your ideas on Gwinnett County transportation improvements.
1. Myth: The current automobile dominance is a free-market outcome.
As early as 1921, the government was pouring $1.4 billion into highways. By the 1960s, that number was $11.5 billion. Public transit did not receive any subsidies until 1964. Thus, the government, not the people, induced and continues to induce the American demand for cars. Society understands that taxing one competitor while subsidizing another one is not a free-market economy.
2. Myth: Trains and transit are subsidized, while highways pay for themselves.
The 2008 Federal Highway Administration numbers show that the gas tax, which is supposed to be the integral part of paying for our country’s roads, covers for only 51.72 percent of the government’s highway budget. Amtrak, a privately-owned company, reported that 67 percent of its operating expenses come from user fees. On a nationwide scale, rail transit covers 53 percent of its costs from user-fees, while urban buses cover only 28 percent.
3. Myth: Where public transportation is necessary, buses are always better.
Unlike bus transit, rail has a positive effect on development and property values. In Denver, Colo., one housing report showed that value of homes with-in one mile of a light-rail station rose by 17.6 percent between 2006 and 2008. While the upfront capital cost of the rail transit is higher, the operating cost per passenger is much lower (approximately $0.50 for rail compared to $0.90 for bus).
4. Myth: No one in Gwinnett supports light-rail.
In fact, the Atlanta Regional Commission, a bipartisan committee of local experts, have examined the numbers and light rail extending to the Gwinnett Arena would attract a ridership of at least 13,000 commuters. Historically, these number tend to be very conservative. The debate continues on whether light rail has enough support from Gwinnett County at-large. “You’re either for light rail or you’re against light rail,” said Norcross Mayor Bucky Johnson, chairman of the regional transportation “roundtable,” which will pull together a final project list. “It’s one of those polarizing projects.” Although, Gwinnett citizens defeated a tax for rail projects in 1971 and again in 1990, these were decades ago and the county is beginning to reflect a more politically diverse populace.
The debate continues in Gwinnett County. We are continuing to explore ways to solve our local transportation problems but whatever we do we have to ask ourselves: What happens in 10 years? 20 years?
Some pro-transit residents argue that light rail is not the only things to solve this issue, but perhaps a holistic approach. Foremost, streets should be designed for all types of travelers—cyclists and pedestrians included. Moreover, instead of giving the oil industry $4 billion in tax breaks, the government could provide incentives for people to drive less. Some states may consider supporting a pay-as-you-go car insurance policy like California.
Whatever happens, we must recognize that change in our local transportation options starts with citizens like you and me. Check out who’s representing you on the Regional Transportation Roundtable and let them know how you feel by visiting Greening Forward’s Take Action webpage and scrolling down to “Curbing Carbon & Green Transportation.”
Art Sheldon
9:29 pm on Tuesday, August 16, 2011
It is disappointing that the regional roundtables' executive committee produced a project list missing enough funding to start building light rail for Gwinnett. Yet the prject list includes almost all the funding for building a road in the route where the outer perimeter highway was to be built before public sentiment against it scuttled that project. This will just add to the sprawl that we are already dealing with and rewuire more infrastructure (water and sewer lines, more roads, etc.) to be built to support that sprawl on aroute that studies showed wouldn't be needed until 2030 if growth continued at the rate it was ten years ago.
Scott
12:27 pm on Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Good article. Thanks for the work and sharing.
RE light rail - I think the biggest issue with light rail and the existing MARTA footprint is that it's really limited to low volume locations. Look at cities with large subway systems and how sprawl is handled. If you have to drive in gridlock to get to a bus or rail station and this take a train then a bus to get where you really want to go then why not just drive yourself? Public transportation requires the rider to give up the freedom of having their own vehicle available to go anywhere anytime they want to go. If light rail were to connect more areas rather than just point A and point B maybe it would be a more favorable option to consider. But how does light rail from Doraville to the Gwinnett Arena help people in Lilburn, Stone Mountain, Snellville, Lawrenceville, Winder, Loganville, and Buford?
Charles Orgbon
10:48 am on Wednesday, August 24, 2011
@Scott Light rail is not meant to serve everyone. We understand that Atlanta encompasses a lot of area and for a light rail system to serve everyone would be a dream. However, we could put transit services where it is most likely to be used at high volumes. This is why the I-85 corridor proposal is favored. I am not sure if the cities you listed are quite ready (i.e. population, ridership) for a light-rail system. Even if you live in an area not serviced by transit, you should still benefit somewhat because there will be less cars on the road which has many obvious benefits.
Jim Regan
12:31 pm on Wednesday, August 17, 2011
As I recall Gov Perdue scuttled the outer perimeter, not public sentiment.
Even though operating expenses for buses are higher than light rail, capital infrastructure cost for buses must be a fraction of any type rail.
With rail is there any possiblity that it will ever recoup the infrastructure cost?
Charles Orgbon
10:50 am on Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Buses and transit investments are not meant to recoup costs. That is not how public transportation systems work. Likewise, never has a road paid for itself.
It is expected that a society would understand the benefits to transit, and thus make that investment.
Jimmy Orr
12:35 pm on Thursday, August 18, 2011
RE: "Some pro-transit residents argue that light rail, etc."
Yeah that's a great idea. Let's tax the oil industry that is already required to obtain oil from OPEC nations because we can't drill for our own oil. In case you "Greenies" have not noticed, when you increase taxes on businesses, they pass along their increased costs to consumers in the form of higher prices, so we will all pay more money for gas in our cars. That's O.K., though, as we we can all get on our bicycles or just walk to work and the government can provide "incentives" for us to drive less. Absurb! "Greenies" forget that the money for "incentives" is either borrowed from the Chinese or taxed from American taxpayers. If California is doing so well, we should all adopt fiscal policies to mimic them so we can all go down the drain together. Save America! Abolish the EPA!
Brian Crawford
1:25 pm on Thursday, August 18, 2011
You need to check your facts Orr. Domestic oil production is the highest it's been since 2004 after declining every year of the Bush administration, http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRFPUS1&f=A
Brian Crawford
1:34 pm on Thursday, August 18, 2011
Also, we produce more crude domestically than we import from OPEC, and OPEC only accounts for roughly 40% of our oil imports.
GwinnettWeather
1:34 pm on Friday, August 19, 2011
Mr. Crawford, I like how you point out things the republican administrations have done, how about this one... Beginning the year Clinton took office, our oil production started the downward decline, funny how that wasn't a republican President?
http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=us&product=oil&graph=production
Charles Orgbon
10:54 am on Wednesday, August 24, 2011
I love how I am called a Greenie almost as if giving care about the future of our planet is supposed to insult me.
Scott
3:54 pm on Thursday, August 18, 2011
Brian - I agree with your first comment about starting to produce more than we have in the earlier 2000 years, but if you look at the graph you link to it's been a steady decline since the mid 80's so your loose blaming it on the Bush Administration seems a little hasty.
As for your 2nd comment I'm not sure what year you're looking at, but it seems our OPEC imports are in the high 40% or at 50% of all our imports since 2005. (http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_neti_a_ep00_IMN_mbblpd_a.htm)
Finally, last I looked California was nearly broke and is one of the more higher taxed states in the country. That's why businesses are leaving California as fast as they can.
Brian Crawford
6:22 pm on Thursday, August 18, 2011
Hi Scott - I was merely using the previous administration as a reference point, not "blaming it on Bush".
In my 2nd comment I was looking at annual production for the most recent year, which actually rounds up to 42% (I was doing the math in my head before, but I was pretty close). http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_a.htm
Your point about "businesses leaving California as fast as they can" due to high taxation seems to be a another Republican myth. http://www.speakoutca.org/weblog/2009/05/moving-the-yach.html
GwinnettWeather
8:02 am on Friday, August 19, 2011
Brian, read the comments below that liberal hogwash.
Charles Orgbon
10:55 am on Wednesday, August 24, 2011
My comment about California has nothing to do with its fiscal policies.
Jimmy Orr
7:34 pm on Thursday, August 18, 2011
Crawford and Scott, I have asked the American Petroleum Institute (API) for their latest figures on domestic production and foreign imports.
Brian Crawford
8:41 pm on Thursday, August 18, 2011
@Orr. Are you tryng to say you don't trust the government? Hahaha.
Jimmy Orr
8:16 am on Friday, August 19, 2011
@Crawford. No, I am saying I don't trust your math.
TheLaw
9:02 am on Friday, August 19, 2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8fkbEuCQss
Here is your Hero Mr. Crawford, using his own words. Tax big oil, which as Mr. Orr has stated is simply passed down to the consumer (higher gas prices) and "give the people some money back in the form of a rebate" (my words). NO DRILLING Mr. Obama says because it wouldn't do anything to help us for a long time. Well, that was nearly 4 years ago. How much closer are we to being energy independent now? We have those awesome wind turbines..., oh wait, their killing all the birds, and those electric cars are doing so well...oh wait, they only sold 125 +/- Volts in the entire US last month. At least we found one pre-election promise that President Obama has kept. He said then he wasn't drilling and he hasn't.
Charles Orgbon
11:02 am on Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Wind turbines can kill as few as 3 birds a year each. I wonder how many fish die from oil spills-- the big ones and the little ones we don't hear about.
TheLaw
12:09 pm on Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Charles do you drive a car? Do you use electricity in your home? Unless you don't use any of the luxuries or advantages that require the use of natural resources, don't stand on a soap box pointing fingers at all of us that do. Secondly, the turbines were simply brought up to prove a point that most of these alternate energy resources cost more to the American people that they help. Look at corn for example. More corn is now used for fuel creation than it is used for feeding people. What about all the starving people in the world that could eat corn? I'd rather help a starving child than save .10 cents a gallon on fuel cost. If we drilled our own oil, or more of it if you want to get silly, then we wouldn't have many of the issues we face today AND we would have bought ourselves time to invent a valid alternative to our future, ever growing needs.
Charles Orgbon
5:56 pm on Wednesday, August 24, 2011
I do drive and I do use our planet's resources, however it is important that these are used efficiently. It is important that our government and our society understands the value of such things as well.
Every source of electricity has it's downfalls. Alternative energy is not as cheap as it should be because our government keeps subsidized nuclear 100x more than alternative energy sources combined. Moreover, coal ash causes cancer when done even right and nuclear causes cancer when done wrong (which happens sometimes).
Volts are expensive right now. This should decrease as people buy more. Over a million Prius' have been sold due largely to their affordability. I bet these one million people would have chosen an electric alternative if it was affordability too.
Scott
12:21 pm on Friday, August 19, 2011
Brian - Check this one too. It's recent.
http://www.fox5sandiego.com/news/kswb-amazon-pulls-out-in-california-over-sales-tax-debate-20110629,0,4048023.story
Georgia isn't far behind with recent talk about the "use" tax and that the state is missing out on tax money when people buy online items or when somebody from DeKalb county comes to Gwinnett and pays our 6% tax rather than their 7% tax.
I don't wish to get into a LEFT/RIGHT discussion, but why is it always the first word out of so many politicians mouth to raise taxes (or close "loopholes") to help balance the budget when it is some of the same politicians that developed the loopholes in the first place. Why don't we hear about real plans to limit spending? Why must we fund everything by higher taxes? Let's cut spending so we can cut taxes and then we would all have more money in our pocket to support some of these local businesses that are having a rough time in the current economy.
Jimmy Orr
2:55 pm on Friday, August 19, 2011
Those of you commenting to Crawford need to realize that there are still socialist among us who continue to believe that it the late socialist President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who through his so called "New Deal socialist programs, brought America out of the Great Depression following the stock market crash of 1929. This has been handed down to each subsequent socialist generation. It is not correct. What brought America out of the Great Depression was the Japanese at a place called Pearl Harbor on December 7,1941. FYI, when Obama returns from his vacation in Martha's Vineyard and announces his job plans for America, look for said jobs to be similar to those created by Roosevelt's WPA program. Some of you will recall that it took 8 WPA workers to cut the grass in an area that measured 25 ft. by 25 ft. Why 8 you might ask? The answer is that with the WPA you would have 2 coming, 2 going, 2 wondering, and 2 mowing.
lee kellogg
6:23 pm on Friday, August 19, 2011
Good to see the memory of John Birch is kept alive. Or is that John Birther?