Writing his first column on the subject, Jay Bookman begins:

I wouldn’t want to accuse Georgia’s Fair Tax movement of being a cult, but it does have a disturbing number of cult-like attributes. Among other things, its adherents display an almost religious fervor for their cause, to the point that they become blind to the obvious irrationality of claims that are made on its behalf.

Naturally, the Commerce Tax zealots respond in cult-like ways. One of my favorite common responses to Commerce Tax critics is “read the book.” Usually, it seems to be the first response, as it was the one time I spoke up on the subject on Peach Pundit:

The idea is based up the the FairTax proposed by John Linder. Read The FairTax Book. Unless you’ve made an real effort to understand it, then don’t criticize it.

… and as it was when Jay Bookman wrote up his criticism:

Mr Bookman,

You either didn’t read the book or you’re just a liar.

The “read the book” answer is one that just proves Bookman’s point about the movement having cult-like attributes. Personally, I’ve never read Marx’s Das Kapital, either. Does that mean I can’t criticize Socialism Communism?

For those who haven’t heard the news, Mayor Bloomberg announced his PLANYC 2030 initiative, which includes a congestion pricing plan that will (unlike any tolling proposals here in Atlanta) help pay for expanded transit service to the outer boroughs. Specifically:

Passenger vehicles entering or leaving Manhattan below 86th Street during the business day (weekdays 6 am to 6pm)—with the exception of the FDR Drive, the West Side Highway, and West Street—would pay an $8 daily fee. Trucks would pay $21. Autos that drive only within “the Zone” would pay half price. The charge would apply to all vehicles, except emergency vehicles, those with handicapped license plates, taxis, and for-hire vehicles (radio cars).

Naturally, there is opposition to the plan. Among the opponents, the Queens Chamber of Commerce released its own biased and flawed report on the idea of congestion pricing. As Streetsblog took note:

The Queens Chamber of Commerce study erects a draconian “straw man” congestion charging scenario that is neither based on London’s system nor on any scenario that has been proposed for New York City.

Meanwhile, in Atlanta, our leaders can’t get past using tolls to pay for more and bigger highways. Sometimes it gets depressing to keep track of Streetsblog and wish Atlanta had NYC’s problems.

More streetcar commentary is on its way. In the meantime, enjoy this quote from a regular MARTA rider, written in response to an inquiry from an Atlanta newbie:

As far as MARTA goes, I take it to work everyday from Civic Center to Arts Center without trouble. From the difference in experiences from those who actually use it everyday versus those who come up with stories about their uncle’s sister’s groundkeeper’s dog’s best friend’s mistress’ next door neighbor horrifying encounter with a person who looks slightly different than they do, I’d say if you want to use MARTA then it’ll work for you. If you don’t want it to work for you, then you’re going to find every single little problem and blow it out of proportion. For some strange reason people in this metro love to brag about how scared MARTA makes them. I suspect many of these people are the same ones with “No Fear” stickers on their trucks.

Erosion of cities by automobiles entails so familiar a series of events that they hardly need describing. The erosion proceeds as a kind of nibbling, small nibbles at first, but eventually hefty bites. Because of vehicular congestion, a street is widened here, another is straightened there, a wide avenue is converted to one-way flow, staggered-signal systems are installed for faster movement, a bridge is double-decked as its capacity is reached, an expressway is cut through yonder, and finally whole webs of expressways. More and more land goes into parking, to accomodate the ever increasing numbers of vehicles while they are idle.

No one step in this process is, in itself, crucial. But cumulatively the effect is enormous.

…

One seemingly logical step is taken after another, each step plausible and apparently defensible in itself; and the peculiar result is a form of city which is not easier to use and to get around in, but on the contrary more scattered, more cumbersome, more time wasting, expensive and aggravating for cross-use.

– Jane Jacobs, 1961

This is Part Four in a series on the Atlanta Streetcar. In this series, I’m taking the time to respond to streetcar critics. Later on, I’ll have a few comments and criticisms of my own.

Read Part One.
Read Part Two.
Read Part Three.

Critic: The streetcar will cause congestion.

And there’s hardly any congestion in Atlanta already. Pardon my sarcasm, but how did we get all this congestion; by building streetcars?

To conquer traffic, it is necessary to focus on conquering automobile dependence. Conquering automobile dependence means building infrastructure that gives citizens the opportunity to use other means of transportation.

Until very recently, planners and local and state officials have hardly given any thought to linking transportation and land-use policy. Land use is land use, and transportation is transportation. Lay out the land according to Euclidean principles — don’t just separate incompatible land uses; separate all land uses! Once the land uses are separated, figure out how to lay out the roads afterward. A simple formula will tell you how much traffic will need to be acommodated from every point A to every point B. When the formula doesn’t work, planners will speculate that it’s because the lights aren’t timed, or there are bottlenecks… any excuse will work as long as the traffic engineers don’t have to interface with real people.

The point here is that if you think of transportation only in Euclidean terms, you’ll only think about transportation as a problem of moving cars and trucks. It is more useful, instead, to think of transportation as a problem of moving people and goods. The streetcar is one tool out of many in the transportation toolbox.

The most conservative estimates show continued growth in the Atlanta metro area: 5.1 million in 2010, 5.9 million in 2020, and 6.97 million in 2030. So far, the metro region (and the City of Atlanta in particular) has exceeded the projections. Infrastructure development could continue to focus on a set of assumptions that are more appropriate for the 1950s or 1960s — when growth wasn’t as much of a concern, energy was cheap (and consequences of its over-consumption were unknown), and cars were “futuristic.”

How can Atlanta transform itself into a pedestrian-oriented city, one that considers the issue of congestion mitigation as a problem of moving people and goods? The answer may be one corridor or one project at a time. In any case, the most logical place to begin is the Peachtree corridor. (This is not to dimish the importance of other projects — the Beltline, C-Loop, commuter rail, etc., are all also crucial. Each fit within the context of a single transportation network.)

In the 1950s and 60s Jane Jacobs watched the erosion by automobiles of New York City as Robert Moses tore through established neighborhoods and uprooted tens of thousands of citizens at a time with new highways. Many commuters in the New York metro still endure the induced demand for travel. Today, we have a choice: either follow the same model and deal with more of the same tired non-solutions, or build the alternative.

I went to the dentist’s office this morning for my regular cleaning and check-up. At some point, the issue of bruxism came up. Bruxism is defined by teeth clenching and grinding, wearing down the teeth in the process. The most common cause of bruxism is said to be stress.

They mentioned that they’ve noticed a greater incidence in cases of bruxism over the past few years. If my dentist’s experience is indicative at all of what’s going on throughout the rest of the metro area, then we have yet another possible link between a city’s transportation infrastructure and public health.

This is Part Three in a series on the Atlanta Streetcar. In this series, I’m taking the time to respond to streetcar critics. Later on, I’ll have a few comments and criticisms of my own.

Read Part One.
Read Part Two.

Critic: But there will be ugly overhead wires!

Many people who make this argument are purposefully spreading FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt). During the initial presentations that were delivered by Atlanta Streetcar, Inc. (and ever since), the issue of overhead wires was already addressed. Generally, the most vocal opponents know that modern streetcar systems can be planned so that the overhead wires are barely noticable. They would rather spread the FUD and call attention to themselves.

From Heritage Trolley:

Direct suspension trolley wire is typical of urban streetcar systems and consists of a single wire running parallel to the center of the track, suspended at a height of about 18 feet. The wire is suspended either by span wires which connect to poles or buildings at the side of the street or by bracket arms that are attached to poles next to the track. Both bracket arms and poles can be decorated with creative designs to enhance the appearance of the streetscape. Carefully designed direct suspension overhead can be quite simple and thus be minimally intrusive to the appearance of the urban area served by the line.

So whatever you do, don’t spread the FUD. It just makes you look like a fool.

I’ll end this post by pasting a couple of recent letters (Saturday Talk, April 14) to the AJC, written specifically in response to the FUD:

Streetcars ran far in old days

There is a reason that the picture you paint of an almost wireless system sounds so nice; it’s because there will be only one line.

As a native of Atlanta and 80 years young, I fondly recall my daily rides on the streetcars. Sure there were wires galore, but the cars ran on almost all of the major streets both north and south and east and west.

Two interurban lines ran to the square in Marietta, and to the foot of Stone Mountain. Atlanta doesn’t come close to having anything like that today.

EUGENE D. RHODES, Roswell

Portland system hums along nicely

I often rode the double overhead wired electric buses in downtown Atlanta years ago. Certainly the wires were unappealing and the bus contacts frequently came off track. Believe me, the Portland, Ore., system is completely different. With the pantograph gliding along in contact with the single wire, you don’t notice much. The quiet steady hum of the electric motor is about it. Much neater and cleaner than our MARTA buses. And, as a bonus, the Portland light rail system (MAX) uses exactly the same type of overhead wiring system, making it as clean and pleasant as the trolley. In fact, I prefer the slightly larger light rail cars that provide free service throughout Portland’s downtown area. It is clearly a system Atlanta should emulate.

ROBERT J. AUGUSTINE, Atlanta

This is Part Two in a series on the Atlanta Streetcar. In this series, I’m taking the time to respond to streetcar critics.

Read Part One.

Critic: The Peachtree corridor is already served by busses

… about every 15 to 30 minutes. That’s assuming the busses are even on time. Route 23 runs from Arts Center to Lenox. Theoretically, it’s one of the most frequent bus routes in the entire system. Theoretically. Route 23 also serves Atlantic Station.

Route 110’s frequency is an unacceptable half-hour. I say “unacceptable” because that’s about the best way I can describe any well-travelled route meant to directly serve Atlanta’s signature street. Route 110 also makes a stop at Arts Center station along the way.

If nothing else, Routes 23 and 110 give commuters a great way to beat the 15th street hill during the summer months. If you don’t know what I’m talking about here, just try it out some day: go to the Arts Center station, then walk up to Peachtree via 15th St. That hill is a monster!

In comparison, the streetcar is planned to have a 5-10 minute frequency. It’s not going to veer off to Atlantic (not-a-train) Station, and it won’t veer off to Arts Center. Unlike the existing bus system, the streetcar is planned to receive signal prioritization, which will mean better service reliability.

It’s also worth noting that people who either use or would potentially use transit consistently prefer rail systems to bus systems. As found by the Transit Research Board, all other things being equal, rail transit tends to attract 34 to 43 percent more riders than equivalent bus service.

Mara Shalhoup writes in last week’s CL that the Atlanta Streetcar’s momenteum is in full swing. The momenteum at this stage hardly means a thing, except that streetcar opponents and quibblers are quietly discussing their strategies to show that the momenteum is total bullshit.

I’m in support of the project, though I have only one thing I would change. But in any case, here is part one of my guide to the criticisms I’ve heard… and my responses.

Critic: The streetcar will provide service that is redundant with MARTA’s existing rail service.

There are two parts to this argument that are worth discussing:

1. redundancy is bad in a transportation system, and
2. the streetcar service is entirely redundant with MARTA’s existing rail service.

On the first point, redundancy in a transportation system can also be characterized as connectivity. Whether discussing a street grid with short blocks or Manhattan’s North-South subway lines, these “redundant” systems have several advantages over the typical DOT layout:

• They allow commuters choices of which modes and ways they want to travel.
• They spread traffic across the network, which reduces congestion
• They cost less per taxpayer to build and operate because fewer lane miles are needed to serve the same population
• They are safer than the typical DOT layout — and they become safer as population and employment densities rise.
• They are easier to navigate by car or bike, or on foot.

There is more I could add to the list, but I hope you get my point here. A connected street grid, with multiple modal options, carries many benefits for a relatively low cost — especially when compared to a disconnected DOT-style layout (usually referred to as a street hierarchy). As densities within the connected grid rise, so do the benefits.

On the second point, the critics are not entirely correct. Peachtree Street and the MARTA rail line do not always run parallel to one another. North of 17th Street, the MARTA rail line veers off to Lindbergh, leaving a 4.5-mile stretch of Peachtree with no rail service — and that’s just between 17th Street and GA-400. Even when they do run parallel to one another, MARTA stations are rarely within a convenient walking distance to Peachtree Street. Far from being “redundant” in the way the critics imply, the streetcar closes a long-existing gap in rail service.

There are also differences between the streetcar and MARTA’s heavy rail system that make them compatible as parallel routes. The heavy rail system travels faster (it reaches up to 35 mph along the trunk between Arts Center and Garnett). The streetcar is meant to be used for travelling shorter distances than what is normally convenient on MARTA’s rail system. While it’s generally inconvenient to go one stop along the trunk (for example, Five Points to Peachtree Center), it would serve the pedestrian quite well to use a streetcar to travel that distance. The streetcar serves as a pedestrian accelerator in a way that the exiting MARTA rail system cannot.

For anyone wishing for Atlanta to be a more connected city, the “redundancy” criticism is worse than wrong. It is dangerously counter-productive.

If multiethnic writing is somewhere in your field of vision, you will find that American Narratives: Multiethnic Writing in the Age of Realism will be an essential part of your collection.

Of course, I’m only somewhat biased in saying this, considering the author of the book is my sister-in-law. In any case, I still remember reading the introduction back when the book was a transcript and found it remarkably accessible. So even if you’re not an English major, pick up a copy and enjoy.

After reading about it, I decided — why not try it out. So I’m now on Twitter. If I have one of those rare moments of going out somewhere and you’re welcome to join, I’ll let the few of you who read this blog know about it. It might be one of those good times you’ll be able to hear me rant about the things I can’t rant about via blog.