By AMY RILEY
One Citizen's Perspective

The Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) wants our tax dollars to help fund road improvements and public transit projects for the Atlanta region to free up U.S. Department of Transportation money which is currently being withheld because of poor air quality in the metro area.

In a twisted bureaucratic symbiosis, the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA) sent a letter to local government entities stating their intent to “activate jurisdiction over Fayette County,” apparently in an effort to ensure that we comply with ARC's request for money and GRTA's request for high density growth in transportation corridors.

The Fayette County commissioners are angry with the tactics, and intend to let the state know of their disapproval in a letter to be drafted by Commissioner Greg Dunn and the county attorney. Bravo, County Commission — we're right in there with you.

The fact that all of this was predicted during the 1999 legislative session debate prior to the establishment of the unelected (unconstitutional?) superagency bristles in the hearts of true conservatives, I'm sure.

Not only is the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority attempting to erode local control over planning and zoning decisions, they are asking (demanding) that we “buy in” to the New Urbanism growth concept despite its faulty premises and potential for failure.

Perhaps the most tested region in the U.S. of the New Urbanism concept is Portland, Ore. Yet while national building and planning professionals heap accolades and attention for “smart growth,” cities like Portland and watchdog groups like The Heritage Foundation are embroiled in a philosophical battle over New Urbanism's capacity for boon or bust.

In a nutshell, new urbanists believe that automobiles, the interstate system, and urban sprawl are all part of a faulty system that cannot be sustained. Our current paradigm for living is blamed for higher pollution, dilapidated inner cities, and higher costs to taxpayers for public services and infrastructure.

Urban sprawl has become public enemy number two, right behind public education, and is a top political campaign issue. The New Urbanism solution is to create higher density, mixed-use developments in transportation corridors to encourage people to live, shop, work and play in one location (or a location reachable by public transit), and get rid of commuters' automobiles. Thus, sprawl and pollution will be solved.

This may work in inner cities, but is it feasible to retrofit greater suburbia with this model? Not likely.

Even if local residents availed themselves of commuter rail to get to work outside of Fayette County, all but those actually in the high density zone will have to travel to the station to board the train. All those in the zone wishing to shop, attend extracurricular activities, and work locally must still drive out of the zone to get there. Higher density zoning equals greater numbers of cars and greater pollution, not less.

According to Wendell Cox, in a March 1999 study published by The Heritage Foundation, “traffic congestion in Portland already is approaching that of the New York metropolitan area — which is 15 times larger — and Portland projections indicate that, even after building five additional light rail lines, traffic volumes will rise by more than 50 percent by 2015.”

People have not, and most likely will not, abandon their automobiles in favor of public transit at anywhere near the needed rate to justify the New Urbanism growth concept. In fact, according to the U.S. Dept. of Transportation, in “Our Nation's Travel” and a “Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey” in 1995, the average peak hour commuting time has not increased significantly in over 25 years, in part because people have abandoned transit services in favor of cars. According to the survey, the average commute time using public transit is about 80 percent longer than the average trip time in a car.

Furthermore, suburban shopping has increased retail competition and effectively lowered consumer costs, which has helped drive our nation's booming economy. In short, people are not going to expend longer spans of time commuting to work, walk or ride transit to shop where there is less choice and higher cost, nor exclusively play inside their growth “zones,” all for some altruistic notion that it is the right thing to do for air quality.

The American people have enjoyed a lifelong love affair with mobility and choices. They want to go where they want to go, when they want to go, in the quickest and most pleasurable way possible. Then they want to get in their cars and drive home to their quaint little bedroom communities to live and enjoy the fruits of their labor.

Why, after all these years, is that suddenly unsustainable?

[Your comments are welcome: ARileyFreePress@aol.com.]

Back to Opinion Home Page | Back to the top of the page