More than 20 years ago, the Atlanta Beltline entered the public realm from Ryan Gravel’s master’s thesis about orienting density and development around an existing rail corridor. Gravel sent his map and summary to me, then-chairperson of the Atlanta City Council Transportation Committee.
That began a multiyear public discussion on what might be possible along the corridor and how to overcome obstacles and objections that come with any public project of this scope. The Beltline was birthed through a public engagement process to give the vision details and build grassroots support for the project. It was not, like the Atlanta Streetcar and the Emory transit line, part of the project list developed by the “Atlanta Way” under the direction of the elite philanthropic and corporate community that usually determines major civic investment projects.
To be eligible for federal funds, a transit project goes through a series of steps and studies to determine the appropriate alignment or location of a transit line, ensure viability and solve issues that arise during public engagement. The studies need to be professional and objective and are subject to intense scrutiny given the small pot of money that too many transit projects compete to receive.
Credit: ccompton@ajc.com
Credit: ccompton@ajc.com
To be clear, the Atlanta Beltline was conceived as a transit project. The idea was to orient density along the vacant corridor, connect neighborhoods around the city via light rail/streetcar/fixed rail transit and connect to MARTA at the four compass points (Lindberg, Inman Park, West End and Bankhead), out of automobile traffic and on the existing rail corridor. Early corridor alignment and vehicle studies were done to prepare applications for federal funding for the transit project. One of the earliest and most critical issues was creating enough density to support transit. We solved that issue by engaging neighborhoods to rezone land along both sides of the corridor to transit-oriented density, and we see the results in the new corridor developments today.
The Atlanta Streetcar was an albatross from beginning. It clogged important downtown street arteries, frustrated businesses disrupted during construction, brought unsightly overhead wires to historic neighborhoods, and cost a fortune to build and operate. Opening day of the Atlanta Streetcar brought what was likely its highest ridership as supporters beat the drum of their success, which quickly turned to yet another embarrassing financial and public relations fiasco for Atlanta.
Those of us who were working on the Atlanta Beltline knew that the Atlanta Streetcar would fail for lack of connection to anything meaningful for riders. We also knew that its ultimate failure would reflect poorly on Atlanta Beltline transit and might make transit on the Beltline more difficult to complete.
Fast forward to today and what we predicted has come true. Ridership on the Atlanta Streetcar is virtually nonexistent and costs us a lot of money to operate this train to nowhere. No real leadership has stepped forward to say what needs to be said: the Atlanta Streetcar is too expensive, was poorly conceived and should never have happened. Many operate under the belief that we can’t receive funding for transit on the Atlanta Beltline unless it is part of the extension of the Atlanta Streetcar.
Well folks, it’s time to put on our big girl pants and do something bold.
- Mothball the streetcar. Give up. Stop. Save it for later if it makes sense to restart. Do not extend this folly to the Beltline.
- Stop studying the studies. The density needed to provide riders exists in the Northeast and Southeast corridors and is rapidly being built in the Southwest and Northwest corridors. The alignment is there, and the need for fixed rail is studied and established and doesn’t need to be revisited until our “Atlanta Way” leaders get the results they want, which is no transit on the Beltline.
- Solicit bids to design and build transit on the Atlanta Beltline now. Other cities have figured out how to build transit lines quickly and with reasonable budgets. We should push to build all of it at once — not like squeezing toothpaste out of the tube, one painful mile at a time. Engaging a company to design and build (and perhaps operate, if MARTA can’t get out of its own way and get it done) will introduce the competition in pricing and timing that this project needs to succeed in our lifetime.
The “Atlanta Way” brought us the Atlanta Streetcar, the Atlanta Public Safety Training Center on land long designated as much-needed parkland, and the sale of the Atlanta Civic Center and other land that could and should be used to provide housing more affordable for Atlanta’s legacy residents and workforce. Perhaps we should try something different. Let the “Atlanta Way” stand for innovation, solutions to climate change and income inequality and honor citizen engagement with completion of projects long promised and consistently denied.
Cathy Woolard, a former chairwoman of the Fulton County Election Board, served on the Atlanta City Council from 1998 to 2004, including as president from 2002 to 2004.
About the Author
