Miller 1

Dynamic minds in rapid urbanization; How external experience affects opinions on public transportation in a historically rural area.

Ruth Miller Chris Zegras, Advisor

May 23, 2007

Miller 2

Special thanks to:

Chris Zegras, MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning Kay Lee and the Center for Community Preservation and Planning

Mike Hopkins and the board of the Newton County Water and Sewer Authority David Hays, The Mansfield Group

Newton County 4H Sam Maurer, Evan Iwerks, Mason Tang, Lauren Oldja, and Adelaide Calbry-Muzyka

Miller 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... 4 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 5

THE STUDY AREA 7

LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................................................... 10 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IN METROPOLITAN ATLANTA ................................... 13

TERMINUS: RAIL IN THE NEW SOUTH: 1835 1920 13 THE RISE OF THE AUTOMOBILE: 1900 1968 14 TAKE MARTA, ITS SMARTA: 1960 1978 16 FREEING THE FREEWAYS: 1977 1994 20 A HESITANT RETURN TO REGIONAL THINKING: 1995 2007 21

EVIDENCE FROM A COUNTY .......................................................................................... 24 METHODOLOGY 24 MEASURES OF REPRESENTATION 26 RESULTS 27

What is the nature of public opinion towards public transportation in a rural and rapidly expanding area? 28 How do the opinions of new residents towards public transportation differ from those of long-term residents? 31 What style of public transportation would be most amenable to its intended users? 32

SHORTCOMINGS 35 CONCLUSION....................................................................................................................... 38 APPENDIX A: PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION OPINIONS SURVEY .............................. 40 APPENDIX B: SELECTED ADDITIONAL RESPONSES ................................................. 41

Miller 4

Table of Figures Fig. 1: The Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta Metropolitan Statistical Area 7 Fig. 2: MARTA rail and bus services, 2000 19 Fig. 3: Newton County and the Atlanta MSA 24 Fig. 4: Opinion of public transportation, general case and MARTA 28 Fig. 5: If public transportation were available to places you frequent, would you use it? 29 Fig. 6: MARTA frequency of use 29 Fig. 7: Factors affecting opinions of public transportation 30 Fig. 8: Overall opinion of public transportation, native and non-native Georgians 31 Fig. 9: Overall opinion of public transportation, experienced and inexperienced users 32 Fig. 10: Modal choice, native and non-native Georgians 33 Fig. 11: Modal choice, experienced and inexperienced users 33 Fig. 12: Frequency of corridor travel, work and other purposes 34 Fig. 13: Frequency of corridor travel, native and non-native Georgians 35

Miller 5

Introduction Public transportation (as opposed to private transportation) describes a transport system in which passengers do not travel in their own private vehicles. Public transportation generally refers to rail and bus services any system that transports members of the general public.

Public transportation systems also vary along a continuum of regional and local service. Regional transportation describes service across a longer distance and is geared towards commuters during rush hour, while local describes a transportation system with more frequent, more densely located stops for shorter trips typically spread more evenly throughout the day (though peaking is still common). The City of New York is served by five public transportation system, and they fall into different parts of the regional-local continuum: Amtrak is a long distance option that can carry travelers across the country; the Long Island Railroad, New Jersey Transit, and Metro-North are also regional transportation, but within the New York Tri-State area; and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority is New Yorks local transportation system that operates only within the five boroughs. Some cities have developed along with their public transportation systems (such as Boston, New York). As these cities grew, so did their local and regional transportation systems. Other, older cities, such as Paris and London, had the political will to impose subways and buses at a time when it was politically feasible. The public today is less forgiving of the imposition of cost and private land ownership makes such accumulation of continuous right-of-ways much more difficult.1 Public transportation remains successful in these cities through the support of a relatively dense core (sufficient to support dense local public transportation) and a fairly dense surrounding area (ideal for regional public transportation).

As cities continue to grow and private transportation becomes increasingly costly to the environment and the tax base, public transportation is becoming increasingly favorable. Thus, communities are asking how local and regional public transportation can adapted to meet the

1 Warner, Sam B., Streetcar Suburbs, The Process of Growth in Boston, 1870-1990.

Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Miller 6

needs of new, less dense areas, such as Louisianas post-Hurricane Katrina regional bus service2 or Copenhagens fledgling local subway system3. Rail and bus service for the model of an older city (one with a dense urban center and sparse suburbia) has been honed to produce a generally accepted product. But in newer, more automobile-dependent cities with less dense urban cores, this model is a difficult fit. This quandary plagues the fastest growing regions of the United States the south and southwest.4 Cities like Atlanta, Las Vegas, and Phoenix with limited local public transportation and extremely limited or no regional public transportation are finding difficulty in retrofitting old public transportation systems to meet their needs. 5 How does a planner reconcile the environmental and financial needs for public transportation with these problems of density and cost? Suburban residents are vocal and quick to resist the expansion of bus and rail public transportation in some areas. What are there concerns, and how can these concerns be met while still reducing environmental and financial costs?

2 Conversation with Eric Plosky, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, October 2006 3 Copenhagen Metro Information. restad Dev. Corporation.

. 4 Bernstein, Robert. 50 Fastest-Growing Metro Areas Concentrated in West and South. U.S.

Census Bureau News 5 Apr 2007 30 Apr 2007 .

5 Aggazio, Donna. Phoenix Prepares to Launch Rapid Bus Service. This Month in Public Transportation, American Public Transportation Association. 9 May 2003 30 April 2007 .

Miller 7

Figure 1: The Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta Metropolitan Statistical Area

The Study Area This study narrows the scope of rapidly urbanizing, historically rural areas into a county

on the edge of the 28-county Metropolitan Atlanta Area. Atlanta is a relatively newer city with a less dense and automobile-centric urban core, limited local public transportation, and extremely limited regional public transportation.6 Commuters from Atlantas suburbs have one real option: the private automobile. The Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transportation Authority (MARTA) is

6 Molis, Jim. Atlanta's growth fuels expanded MSA. Atlanta Business Chronicle 22 Aug

2003, 30 Apr 2007 .

Miller 8

the exclusive operator of local bus and rail public transportation in the two innermost counties,7 and the fledging Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA) only began operating its 11 County area regional Xpress bus service in 2006.8 Amtraks Crescent line (service from New Orleans to Washington, D.C.) stops in Atlanta and a few cities to the northeast, but is not scheduled to serve those making short trips, such as regular commutes. Currently, no combination of regional public transportation exists to serve the entire metropolitan area. Metropolitan Atlantas dependence on private automobile transportation, coupled with a prolonged population explosion, has become problematic. According to the U.S. Census, no other metropolitan area in the country added more residents than Atlanta between 2000 and 2006 roughly 890,000.9 In 2005, three of the nations ten fastest growing counties were located in Metropolitan Atlanta.10 In the same year, Coweta County residents (who live an average of 40 miles from Atlanta) commuted an average of 56-minutes to win the dubious honor of the longest one-way commute in the country.11 Fourteen other Metropolitan Atlanta counties were also included in the top 100 longest commutes the most for any single metropolitan area or state.12 As growth continues to flood suburbs, and commuters face congested interstates every day, figures like these have given Atlanta the reputation of a low-density, automobile-dependant center of sprawl.13

Some residents, businesses, and civic leaders are pursuing public transportation as an alternative to vehicles for largely environmental reasons (see A Hesitant Return to Regional Thinking: 1995 2007 on page 21). Transit development plans have been proposed and

7 American Public Transportation Association. Georgia Transit Links. Dec 13, 2006.

. 8 Xpress Yourself: Commuter Service for Metropolitan Atlanta. Xpress Homepage.

. 9 U.S. Census Bureau; 2000 Population, 2006 population estimate: 2005 10 U.S. Census Bureau; Fastest Growing Counties in the United States: 2005 11 Associated Press, Georgia has highest number of counties with long commutes.

Macon.com Aug 31, 2006 Nov 27, 2006 .

12 Ibid. 13 Ewing, Reid. Measuring Sprawl and its Impact. Smart Growth America 4. 27 April 2007

.

Miller 9

feasibility studies are underway that envision rail in six corridors of the Atlanta region,14 but at this time, the biggest hurdle to the expansion of public transportation development is the publics vocal opposition (and thus inability to obtain public funds).15

It is the purpose of this thesis to develop a better understanding of the nature of the low public opinion towards public transportation held by those in Metropolitan Atlanta, and to explore one theory to explain why these opinions appear to be brightening. Specifically, this thesis asks: What is the nature of public opinion towards public transportation in a rural and rapidly expanding area? Do the opinions of new residents towards public transportation differ from those of long-term residents? And what style of public transportation would be most amenable to its intended users?

These questions are first approached through a historical lens. The following sections of this thesis are a summary of literature on the evolution of public and private transportation in the United States (page 10) and a recapitulation of the history of public transportation in the metropolitan Atlanta area (page 13).

Given the investigators familiarity with Newton County and the I-20 corridor, these sections are followed by a case study. The subsequent sections outline and discuss a voluntary response survey conducted in Newton County to assess household travel bundles, preferences between rail and bus, experience in other cities, and familiarity with other transit systems (24), followed by a statement of conclusions (page 38).

14 Regional Transit Action Plan Executive Summary. Georgia Regional Transportation

Authority 30 Jun 2003 30 Apr 2007 .

15 Monroe, Doug. Bad ride. When will leaders learn that more highways arent the answer? Creative Loafing. 26 Feb. 2005. .

Miller 10

Literature Review Atlanta provides an excellent case study in the dynamic relationship between cities and

transportation. The rise of automobiles and decline of transit in Atlanta embodies several national trends to occur during this time period, beginning with the first arrival of streetcars.

Prior to the eighteenth century, property was divided into strata of urban and rural: urban cities were the centers of trade and rural areas supported agriculture. Suburbs first started to appear when technological capabilities were expanded in the venues of food distribution, water supply, and home construction. The creation of independent suburban communities mimicked the emphasis on local autonomy that pervaded much of U.S. political philosophy.16

These first suburbs centered exclusively on mass transportation. First, suburban residents relied on railroads and omnibuses in the late 1830s, then streetcars by the 1850s, and finally, with the growing prevalence of rail and electricity in the 1880s, rail transportation.17 Whereas before, technology limited the radius of development to within two miles of a citys center, and immigrants continued to pour in, these advances in transportation quickly encouraged a rapid decentralization of urban uses.18

In these early stages of suburbia, suburbs were only viable when they were accessible from the centers of industry and employment and this largely meant streetcars. Most railway companies at this time were also involved in real estate development. Thus, many suburbs were known as trolley or streetcar suburbs. Developers would purchase land along a corridor outward from a city, build the streetcar service, and then make a profit by selling the property to homeowners. This resulted in a relatively comprehensive network of streetcar lines, but very little cooperation between rail companies.19

Residents fled the cities looking for the natural elements their urban existence lacked. Frederick Law Olmsted, and later his sons, laid the framework for integration of space with nature. Olmsted, who is perhaps best known for designing Central Park and Bostons Emerald

16 Binford, Henry C. The Early Nineteenth-Century Suburb: Creating a Suburban Ethos in

Somerville and Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1820-1860. Two Centuries of American Planning. 41.

17 Ibid., 43. 18 Foster, Mark S. From Streetcar to Superhighway: American City Planners and Urban

Transportation, 1900-1940. 15. 19 Warner, Streetcar Suburbs. 16-17.

Miller 11

Necklace, also designed many suburbs in the late nineteenth century (including Druid Hills, and suburb of Atlanta). Olmsted outright rejected cities as unnatural, unappealing places filled with din and tumult.20 His work is now recognized for its seamless integration of transportation and environ space was planned around the view for passengers in transit. Beautiful vistas were forged to accommodate the newly mobile suburbanites and covered vast expanses of land.21 The desire for a suburban lifestyle still escaped much of America for reasons of cost and inaccessibility. During the Great Depression, a number of policies were put in place designed to make it easier for citizens to own their own homes the logic being that home ownership was a more stable lifestyle choice. The most successful of these policies, which mainly focused on the availability of mortgages22, when coupled with public infrastructure projects such as large-scale highway expansion, made it easier for individuals to afford homes in the suburbs and more convenient for these residents to commute to work in cities. After World War II, returning war veterans flocked to the suburbs to start their families, and the American Dream expanded to include a white picket fence, patch of grass, and car life in the suburbs came to represent independence.23 As the suburbs became more accessible, those that were able poured out of the relatively overcrowded and dirty cities. Quickly, this white flight rendered major cities at the mercy of blight. Urban theorists of the day took on the analogy of the biological model of the city, especially disease: cities had hearts capable of pulsating with health, but were instead clogged with population however, the most dreaded killer was the cancer of blight which vitiated the urban core, then spread its deadly tentacles outward to devour one vital neighborhood after another. The recommended surgery was urban renewal.24

Urban theorists of the time, including Guy Greer, Catherine Bauer, Coleman Woodbury, and Walter Gropius, believed that urban development was doomed unless coupled with broad- 20 Wilson, William H.. The Seattle Park System and the Ideal of City Beautiful. Two

Centuries of American Planning. 113. 21 White, Dana F. Frederick Law Olmsted, the Placemaker. Two Centuries of American

Planning. 87. 22 Including the Home Owners Refinancing Act (1933), National Housing Act (1934), U.S.

Housing Act (1937). Two Centuries of American Planning, 200. 23 Johnson, David A. Regional Planning for the Great American Metropolis: New York

between the World Wars. Two Centuries of American Planning. 24 Bauman, John F. The Paradox of Post-War Urban Planning. Two Centuries of American

Planning. 233.

Miller 12

scale, federally-subsidized housing programme.25 American planners lobbied for the orderly resettlement of congested urban populations.26 Dense areas of cities, those that were regarded as unsightly or overcrowded, were cleared with often little chance for public comment. The drastic action taken by cities and planners to clean up the cities further cemented the notion in some minds that the cities were broken, and still more people flocked to the suburbs to live and, when possible, work.27

Nationwide, urban areas suffered, suburbs blossomed, and public transportation rider ship spiraled into decline as more and more people drove to work in their private vehicles. Highways continued to weave their way through and around urban areas, as public transportation service declined in all but a few struggling major cities. As American planners turned abroad for inspiration, including the German Autobahn, highway design became a major point of study. Also, politicians vociferously supported the construction of highways, as they were seen to be equitable to both urban and rural interests. Little stood in their way.28

25 Bauman, 234 26 Ibid., 235 27 Ibid., 240. 28 Foster, Mark S. From Streetcar to Superhighway: American City Planners and Urban

Transportation, 1900-1940. 167.

Miller 13

Public Transportation in Metropolitan Atlanta Terminus: Rail in the New South: 1835 1920 In the early nineteenth century, the Georgia Legislature sponsored steam transportation and chartered railways to support the states thriving agricultural economy. One example of such support is an act passed in 1835 authorizing the construction of a rail road from the Tennessee line, near the Tennessee river, to the southwestern bank of the Chattahoochee River, at a point most eligible for the running of branch roads thence to Athens, Madison, Milledgeville, Forsyth and Columbus. The specifications were such that the engineer-in-chief, Stephen H. Long, chose to establish the eastern terminus of the road not on the Chattahoochee River, but seven miles east of it. This terminus was aptly named Terminus, and Terminus quickly began to flourish into what would become modern Atlanta.29 Industry, investment, and rail poured into the city. Among others, the Macon & Western, Georgia Central, and the Atlanta & West Point lines were built. The citys name was changed twice, and the final change itself was even an homage to the citys dependence on rail: Atlanta was derived from Western & Atlantic Rail Road at the recommendation of J. Edgar Thompson, chief engineer of the Georgia railroad.30

As the city continued to attract residents and businesses (it became the capital of Georgia in 1868)31, streetcars began appearing in 1871 via the Atlanta Street Railway Company. A number of other private streetcar companies began operating in the next decade (including the Gate City Street Railroad Company, Fulton County Street Railroad Company, Metropolitan Street Railroad Company, and the West End & Atlanta Street Railroad Company). Joel Hurt, owner of the Atlanta & Edgewood Street Railroad Company, bought out the other companies in May 1891 to form the Atlanta Consolidated Street Railway Company. Control of the rail monopoly became another front of the Second Battle of Atlanta, in which Hurt and Henry M. Atkinson, founder of Georgia Electric Light Company of Atlanta, feuded for three years, ending with Atkinson buying out Hurts interests to form the Georgia Railway and Electric Company

29 Atlanta Historical Society, Atlanta in 1890: The Gate City. Macon, Georgia: Mercer

University Press, 1986. Pages 4, 9. 30 Ibid., 12. 31 Georgia.Gov. History of Georgia's Capital Cities. The State of Georgia. 5 Dec 2006

.

Miller 14

(later Georgia Power, and today Southern Company). Control of the city was deemed not possible without control of the citys rail.32

As Georgia Railway and Power Company amassed a streetcar empire downtown, Southern Railway (created by J.P. Morgan), Central of Georgia, and later Atlantic Coast Line and the Seaboard Air Line Railway absorbed smaller companies and continued laying new lines to establish Atlanta as the rail hub of the South. These private companies provided passenger and freight service crossing the state through the end of World War I.33

Former Atlanta Police Chief Herbert T. Jenkins described pre-automobile Atlanta as: a tight-little-island community perched atop rolling hills and securely anchored to a crisscross of interconnecting railroad tracks. Transportation in Atlanta had meant railroads, and the city did not venture far away from the lifelines carrying their steam-chugging trains of people and cargo into the city.34

The Rise Of The Automobile: 1900 1968 Once the first automobiles arrived, Atlantans quickly fell in love with them. By 1909, 1,300 of the 9,000 registered motorcars in the United States were registered in Atlanta.35 The Atlanta Automobile Association purchased 300 acres south of the city to create the Atlanta Speedway at Candler Field.36 Almost as quickly as Atlantans fell in love with their cars, politicians learned to abide voting motorists. Campaigns in the 1940s promised to eliminate hiding police, while publicity materials pictured police lurking like bandits behind hedges and trees to pounce upon innocent and unsuspecting motorists.37 While the city was ranked third worst in the nation for auto-related deaths, the Greater Atlanta Traffic Improvement Association

32 Georgia Power Company/Southern Company. New Georgia Encyclopedia. 10 Feb. 2004.

Georgia Humanities Council. 22 Jan. 2007 .

33 Railroads. New Georgia Encyclopedia. 3 Nov. 2006. Georgia Humanities Council. 22 Jan. 2007 .

34 Jenkins, Herbert T. Atlanta and the Automobile. Atlanta: Center for Research in Social Change, Emory University, 1977. 1.

35 Jenkins, Atlanta and the Automobile. 70. 36 Ibid., 72 37 Ibid., 89.

Miller 15

recommended the elimination of curbside parking to accommodate traffic and reduce congestion.38 In the interest of further accommodating traffic and reducing congestion, streetcars were replaced with electric, rubber-wheeled trolleys. Able to pull over to allow cars to pass, electric trolleys were first introduced in 1941 and had completely replaced steel-wheeled streetcars by 1949. 39

Even rubber-wheeled trolleys proved to be far from perfect, as they still created a public safety hazard in icy weather, the overhead trolley connectors were targets for destructive juveniles, and the wires crisscrossed the city to create a bleak and foreboding appearance.40 These continued problems, along with the increasing availability of private automobiles, eventually lead to a decline in demand for public transportation and a movement to reduce its cost (both financially, visually, and on congestion). 41 The 1950 five-week transit strike ended when Georgia Railway and Power Company sold the suffering transportation properties to form the Atlanta Transit System (ATC). The ATC removed the last trackless trolley in 1962, at which point Atlantas public transportation consisted entirely of rubber-wheeled diesel buses.42 As demand for local public transportation declined, demand for regional public transportation sank, too. The last regional rail public transportation service, the Silver Comet, ended its Athens to Atlanta service in 1968. The shift towards rubber-wheeled transport was universal tonnage of rail freight service declined during this time, as well. By the end of the 1960s, passenger rail only existed in Georgia along Amtraks Crescent Line (inter-state service from New Orleans to Washington, D.C., and far from optimal for intra-state use), while freight rail only operated along the two lines (the Central Georgia and the Southern). By the end of the 1960s, 13.4% of residents of DeKalb and Fulton Counties traveling to work used these buses, while 86.6% used private automobiles.43 38 Jenkins, Atlanta and the Automobile. 92. 39 Ibid., 109. 40 Ibid., 112. 41 Jenkins, Herbert T. Forty Years on the Force. Atlanta: Center for Research in Social Change,

Emory University, 1972. 42 Ibid. 43 U.S. Census Bureau; Proportion of population who travel to work by public transportation,

Workers 16+ years old traveling work by car, truck: 1970

Miller 16

Take MARTA, its SMARTA: 1960 1978 By 1960, state highway department figures showed that I-75/I-85 North between 14th Street and downtown operated at 35% above capacity on a 24-hour basis, with 70-85% more demand expected by 1975.44 With the last passenger rail service discontinued, and the Atlanta Transit Systems buses quickly going broke, the Atlanta Chamber of Commerce president (and soon Mayor) Ivan Allen, Jr. proposed the creation of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) in 1965 to expand and upgrade urban public transportation in Atlanta.45

MARTA not only needed approval from the Georgia Legislature, but the voters of each member county had to pass a referendum to join (and thus allow their county funds to contribute to the first planning stages). The original proposed member counties were the five counties of what was then the Metropolitan Atlanta Area: Fulton, DeKalb, Gwinnett, Clayton, and Cobb.46 Atlanta regarded itself as a modern city (the Capital of the New South). Just one year before the creation of MARTA, Mayor Allen told reporters were going to build a stadium on land we dont own with money we dont have for a team we dont have. Within a few years, professional baseball, football, and soccer teams were playing in the newly built Atlanta-Fulton County Stadium.47 This spirit applied to rail, and MARTAs proponents expected an easy time of fixing Atlantas public transportation needs. The MARTA Acts 1965 proposal in the Georgia Legislature erupted into an explosive debate and prompted one of the bodys most historic speeches. The vote to create MARTA followed a rigorous debate on another bill in which urban interests triumphed over rural ones, and the rural Congressmen were left determined not to allow the urban benefactors of the MARTA Act to succeed again. Thomas Murphy, a rural Congressman in his fourth of 42 years as Congressman and a future Speaker of the House, recounted his now famous statement in an interview in 1988:

I remember I told them that they were trying to penalize one section of our state because those people felt like the classification bill wasnt proper and that that aint [sic] the way we

44 Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority. Mass Transit Management: Case Studies of

the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority. Final Report. Athens, GA: University of Georgia, Dept. of Political Science. Mar. 1981. 1.

45 King, Elliot. Rapid Transit Progress. Atlanta: Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority. Oct. 1996, Vol. 1, No. 1.

46 Mass Transit Management: Case Studies of MARTA. Final Report. 12-13. 47 Ibid., 17.

Miller 17

are supposed to do business in Georgia And I told them, I says We are pouring millions of millions of dollars down these rat holes we call expressways that are obsolete before we complete them, and this will save us millions and millions of dollars. And of course, when I sat down, they voted and passed it.48

The newly minted MARTA lost its first charter member a few months later when only four of the five Metropolitan counties passed the referendum to join. Cobb County voters refused to allow their city or county funds to contribute to MARTA planning.49

Undeterred, MARTA began courting the State for funds. Until this time, State transportation dollars were reserved exclusively for highway construction. Another voter referendum was held among Atlanta area counties in November 1966 to approve a Constitutional Amendment that would allow (but not require) the State to provide not more than 10 per cent of the total cost of constructing rapid transit. The proposal passed, but with only 55% of the vote. The breakdown by county showed the polarization between urban and suburban voters: Fulton and DeKalb County voters passed the measure by more than 70%, Clayton voters passed it by a mere 50.2%, and Gwinnett and Cobb voters rejected it (44.7% and 39.6%, respectively).50 The next legislative session approved $500,000 for the first fiscal year of MARTAs regional planning effort.51

Over the next few years, MARTA turned to the federal and county governments for financing. To cover the first five years of construction, each of the five counties were asked for $200 million, and the federal government was asked for $230 million. Chairman of MARTA, Richard H. Rich, described the experience as being:

the proverbial chicken or the egg situation... the federal government will not provide funds until the local government shows their serious intent to do their part, and the local governments likely will be reluctant to step out without assurance of federal support.52

In 1967, the U.S. House of Representatives approved MARTAs request, but with significant cuts. To sway voters before they entered the polls, MARTA contracted a financial impact analysis to illustrate how the $200 million would affect county residents in what became 48 An Oral History of Thomas Murphy. May 5, 1988; Interviewed by Cliff Kuhn, Georgia

Government Documentation Project, Georgia State University. 49 Mass Transit Management: Case Studies of MARTA. Final Report. 24. 50 King, Elliot. Rapid Transit Progress. Atlanta: Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority.

Vol. 1, No. 2. 51 Ibid., Vol. 2, No. 1. 52 King, Vol. 2, No. 7.

Miller 18

the Hamburger Plan: in Fulton County, this amounts to the price of a hamburger a week. Voters didnt bite, and in November 1967, Clayton, Cobb, and Gwinnett Counties rejected MARTAs $200 million price tag. However, pundits of the day largely ranked financial concerns secondary to the concerns of white, suburban residents over making their homes accessible by rail to black, urban residents.53

MARTA officials took the limited funds they did receive and begin planning on a smaller scale within just Fulton and DeKalb Counties. In 1968, a referendum bond proposal was put to Fulton and DeKalb Counties to fund a $993 million, 40-mile rail network with 30 stations and extensive bus feeder system.54 The referendum failed, and efforts between MARTA and Atlanta-based Georgia State University brought together a panel of political analysts, who proposed a number of recommendations. Foremost among the citations of failure was the MARTA planners failure to gain support from the citys most vocal black leaders.55 Key among the criticisms from Atlantas black community were the proposed systems marked service inequality (routes would provide greater service to white neighborhoods than black ones), limited minority representation on the MARTA board, and the boards refusal to make minority employment guarantees.56 MARTA addressed much of its criticism and took a revised proposal to vote in all five counties in 1970. The referendum passed only in Fulton and DeKalb Counties.57

MARTAs efforts to solidify support from inside Atlanta only galvanized conservative opponents in the suburban counties. Though the same ballot saw the ousting of segregationist Governor Lester Maddox, racial tension was still extremely high, and white suburbanites refused to allow MARTA into their counties by a four-to-one margin. It was feared by many that MARTA would accelerate the integration of white suburbs, lower property values, and increase crime.58

53 Ibid., Vol. 2, No. 9. 54 Mass Transit Management: Case Studies of MARTA. Final Report. 40. 55 Out of Cars/Into Transit; the Urban Transportation Planning Crisis. Edited by Andrew

Hamer, Georgia State University. 1976. 56 Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA). New Georgia Encyclopedia. 3

Jan. 2007. Georgia Humanities Council. 22 Jan. 2007 .

57 Mass Transit Management: Case Studies of MARTA. Final Report., 53. 58 Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA). New Georgia Encyclopedia.

Miller 19

Figure 2: MARTA rail and bus services, 2000

In the new legislative year, pro-transit Governor Jimmy Carter entered office. MARTAs leaders, eager to gain Carters support, and Carter, eager to gain support from rural legislators, agreed to a deal. Carter discontinued the States annual 10% contribution to MARTA in exchange for a special 1% sales tax in Fulton and DeKalb. Lester Maddox, now Lieutenant Governor, held the bill hostage in committee until the 1% tax was limited to 10 years; thereafter it would be reduced to .5%. Nonetheless, this provided MARTA with an immediate financial windfall. 59

59 Mass Transit Management: Case Studies of MARTA. Final Report. 60.

Miller 20

Eager to gain public support, MARTA acquired Georgias last existing public bus

service, the privately owned and operated Atlanta Transit System, Inc., in 1972 and slashed fares

from 40 cents to 15. In 1975, MARTA released its final report and broke ground: a 66-mile

system including a 56-mile bus network and a 10-mile, north-south rapid rail line alongside

Interstates 75/85.60 A year after MARTAs local rail and bus service began operating in June

1979.61

Freeing the Freeways: 1977 1994 In 1977, the Department of Transportation launched its 17-year Freeing the Freeways

campaign. The $1.5 billion plan was Atlantas response to a protracted and slow public transportation system62 (serving only 7% of Fulton and DeKalb residents who traveled to work in 198063), the end of the energy crisis, and tremendous congestion in downtown Atlanta (in 1975, the section of I-75/I-85 that in 1965 was projected to be operating at 70-85% higher than capacity was crammed with over double its intended volume).64

The Freeways initiative spent $1.5 billion (in state and federal tax dollars), and doubled Atlantas interstate lane miles from 900 to 1,851.65 The first interstate to be constructed under the plan, I-285 or the Perimeter, was designed with state of the art computer traffic models, and was heralded as transforming the downtown connector highway from a bottleneck to a breeze.66 The I-85 and I-285 interchange, commonly known as Spaghetti Junction, was formally named for the Department of Transportation commissioner that made the five-level stack possible Tom Moreland. The Freeways program doubled the capacity of the three interstate

60 Kain, John. The unexpected potential of freeway transit in regional transportation planning:

an Atlanta case study. Out of Cars/Into Transit; the Urban Transportation Planning Crisis (1976).

61 Mass Transit Management: Case Studies of MARTA. Final Report. 73. 62 Monroe, Doug. Bad ride. When will leaders learn that more highways arent the answer?

Creative Loafing. 26 Feb. 2005. .

63 U.S. Census Bureau; Proportion of population who travel to work by public transportation: 1980

64 Clearing those clogged arteries Time 12 Sept. 1988, .

65 Bad ride. Creative Loafing. 66 Clearing those clogged arteries Time.

Miller 21

highways intersecting Atlanta I-20, I-75, and I-85. Critics marveled at the success of the highway expansion in reducing congestion in downtown Atlanta.

This period of private transportation infrastructure growth followed the largest and last State fuel tax increase. Regardless, by the end of the Freeways program, MARTAs local buses and rail expanded their market share to accommodate 11.2% of Fulton and DeKalb residents who left home to work.67 A Hesitant Return to Regional Thinking: 1995 2007 When Atlanta won the bid for the 1996 Olympics, local public transportation enjoyed the rising tide that lifted every construction effort in the area. In 1995, MARTA received a $10 million grant from the federal government to upgrade its bus system and open two new stations on the north-south rail line. Seven miles of local rail and three additional stations opened just a month before the Olympics began in 1996.

While local public transportation got a boost, regional public transportation was still virtually non-existent. With private transportation being the only option for regional travel, traffic and congestion brought the EPA into the discussion. In 1999, Atlantas smog was so bad that the federal government suspended its highway funds pending the creation of a plan to combat the pollution problem. Democratic Governor Roy Barnes responded with the creation of Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA).68 Later that year, a lawsuit brought against the state Department of Transportation by the Georgia Conservancy, the Sierra Club, and Georgians for Alternative Transportation rushed the releasea and implementation of GRTAs first plan the regional Xpress bus serving 13 metropolitan Atlanta area counties. But these projects were still largely in the planning stages by the 2000 census, and only 9% of Fulton and DeKalb residents traveling to work traveled by public means.69

67 U.S. Census Bureau; Proportion of population who travel to work by public transportation:

1990 68 Jaffe, G. (1998) Is traffic-clogged Atlanta the new Los Angeles? The Wall Street Journal 18

June B1. 69 U.S. Census Bureau; Proportion of population who travel to work by public transportation:

2000

Miller 22

At the behest of the EPA, Governor Barnes DOT devised the Commuter Rail Plan to serve 19-counties of North Georgia with six regional rail lines. 70 The first three lines were slated to open in 2000, but the plan resisted by suburban voters is yet to materialize. Interest has lingered along one corridor the Athens to Atlanta line and proponents and opponents of the brain train write into the papers with increasing regularity, but funding sources for the appear stalled for the near future.71 Optimism remains, as Gwinnett County, which voted against joining MARTA in the 1960s, voted to spend $800,000 of its own local funds on the project.72

A second corridor of proposed rail development is the Atlanta-Macon Line. A timeline was set for the early stages of construction, but the phase one deadline was missed in 2006 and today shows no sign of an attempt to renew the project.73

A third rail project the Beltline draws its path along I-285 (the Perimeter) through mostly unused track. Incorporating local parks and recreational areas, the Beltline is as much a greenway or Emerald Necklace as a transit option. Ryan Gravel, a graduate student in architecture and urban planning at Georgia Tech, first proposed the 22-mile route in 1999. Since its formal proposal in 2001, the economic development possibilities (30,000 jobs, 28,000 housing units, restaurants, shops, cultural sites) have garnered local support. Property values in the neighboring areas have increased, forcing developers and public trusts to scramble into purchasing the remainder of the required right of ways. Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin supports the plan: Despite the sense of unreadiness, the opportunity to create the Beltline will slip away if we dont act now. Though money is scarce and technical hurdles remain, developers are optimistic that this plan, entirely within the boundaries of relatively pro-transit counties, will see its way to completion. 74

70 GDOT - Commuter Rail. Georgia Department of Transportation. 2006. Georgia

Department of Transportation. 20 Feb 2007 < http://www.dot.state.ga.us/dot/plan-prog/intermodal/rail/commuterrail.shtml>.

71 All Dressed Up and Nowhere To Go, Gwinnett Daily Post,. 17 Sept. 2006. .

72 Billips, Mike. Mass Transit Coming, But Dont Sell the Car. Georgia Trend. Vol. 15, Iss. 7. Mar. 1, 2000. Page 42.

73 Jacobs, Jake. Georgia secures $106 million for commuter rail project. Knight Ridder Tribune Business News. Apr. 26, 2005. Page 1.

74 Dewarn, Shaila. The Greening of Downtown Atlanta. The New York Times. Sept. 6, 2006. Section E; Column 4; The Arts/Cultural Desk; Page. 1.

Miller 23

Elected in 2002, Governor Sonny Perdues administration has shown itself to be clearly opposed to public rail transportation. Lt. Governor Steve Stancils spokesman, Clint Austin, said There has been no evidence that heavy rail has reduced congestion in any city. Governor Perdues spokesman, Dan McLagan, said: If its slow rail, and it doesnt bring business or help Macon, it just makes the potential to turn Macon into a bedroom community to Atlanta, which is not sustainable tax-wise. 75 Department of Transportation Board Chairman David Doss described the Atlanta-Lovejoy line as basically a choo-choo train and a nineteenth century solution to a twenty-first century problem.76 As rail is being framed as too costly, programs like GRTAs Xpress regional bus service continue to flourish.77

Though over 30 years have passed since the first failed referendum, racism has hardly disappeared from the minds of Metropolitan Atlantans, and safety concerns continue about public transportation. This aside, new options are being explored. GRTA aids the 20 counties that fail to meet the Federal Clean Air Act standards with resources for best practices in land use and transportation development, as well as operating the Xpress regional public bus system.78 Cobb and Gwinnett Counties pioneered private transportation development with their Community Improvement Districts, teaming private and public funds to make necessary private transportation infrastructural upgrades and link their own buses to MARTAs public services inside Atlanta. 79 Perhaps the tradition model of dense local and sprawling regional rail doesnt seem to fit Metropolitan Atlanta, but the current climate in Georgia is one of creativity and optimism, as the powerful and expanding real estate industry seems alert to the role that stifling traffic congestion will play in their futures.

75 Peters, Andy. Georgias Republican Lawmakers Object to Passenger Rail Service. Knight

Ridder Tribune Business News. Oct. 9, 2002. Page 1. 76 Monroe, Doug. The Great Train Robbery; Pardon me boys, are you derailing out choo-

choo? 27 July 2005. 77 Xpress Community Service for Metropolitan Atlanta. Xpress Homepage. GRTA. 1 May

2007 . 78 GRTA Website Homepage. Georgia Regional Transportation Authority. 2006. Georgia

Regional Transportation Authority. 20 Feb 2007 . 79 Morcol, Goktug and Zimmerman, Ulf, Community Improvement Districts in Metropolitan

Atlanta. Source: International Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 29, no. 1-3 (Jan. 2006): Page. 77-105.

Miller 24

Evidence from a County The previous section reviewed the evolution of public transportation in Atlanta, and this section

turns to one county on the outskirts of the metropolitan Atlanta area, Newton County, as a case

study to develop a more detailed understanding of public opinion.

Methodology The main technique employed to answer the specific research questions was

implementation of a survey. The survey was distributed to households through the January/February cycle of the Newton County Water and Sewage Authority bill. Respondents were given three ways to return their completed survey: respondents could mail the survey back with the water bill to which it was attached for no charge, fax the survey to a given number by a given date, or email a contact address (the list newtonsurvey@mit.edu).

Figure 3: Newton County and the Atlanta MSA

Miller 25

The survey is voluntary response. Newton County was in part selected for this study on the basis of the authors familiarity with the study area. It was this familiarity that created the opportunity to make use of the NCWSA mailings. Other methods of feedback collection exist, but it was felt that a mailed survey would reach the most people for the least effort and offer the lowest barrier to response. A simple random sample could not have been conducted using the mailings, given the procedure for distributing the surveys and stuffing the envelopes. Thus, the decision was made to sample as much of the target population as possible.

The intent of the voluntary response survey was to study a historically rural area exposed to a rapid influx of suburban newcomers, thus capturing the snapshot of opinions living together in a dynamic population. Newton County is one county that meets this requirement, and its residents comprise the sample frame. The sampled population includes those accessible by the NCWSA mailing that completed and returned the survey.

The exact content of the survey can be found in Appendix A: Public Transportation Opinions Survey, page 40. These questions were aimed at identifying:

What is the nature of public opinion towards public transportation in a rural and rapidly expanding area?

Do the opinions of new residents towards public transportation differ from those of long-term residents?

And what style of public transportation would be most amenable to its intended users? The surveys were distributed to the 22,000 households receiving county water or sewer

service (64.23% of all projected households)80, and thus are biased towards residents on smaller parcels (typically two acres or less) near major transportation corridors. Those not included in the survey include those people who own their own wells or have septic tanks. The characteristics of those surveyed tend to favor newly located residents, who generally commute out of the county for work.

The returned surveys were coded and recorded using Microsoft Excel. The first two questions were recorded as values (number of household members, vehicles). The following two questions regard points of destination, and their responses were summarized to convey frequency

80 U.S. Census Bureau; Population, percent change, April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2005, for Newton

County, Georgia: 2000

Miller 26

of response in three specific corridors towards Atlanta, towards Athens, or other.81 Questions ranking general opinion (very favorable to very poor) or frequency of use (more than once a week to never), yes or no, and preferences of bus, train, or neutral were all recorded categorically. Question nine open-endedly asks respondents to list factors affecting their opinion of transportation, and categories were created during the recording process to code these results.

Measures of Representation In all, 2,420 of 22,000 surveys were returned, an 11% response rate. Extrapolating from

growth estimates for the County, one might expect 34,284 households in Newton County in 2007,82 and the percentage of total households to complete and return the surveys was 7.06%.

In terms of representativeness of sample, there are only a few demographics with which to compare against the U.S. Census. Those characteristics suggest at least some basic similarities with the target population. For example, the average household size generated from the survey is 2.76, which is well within a 99% confidence interval of Newton Countys population mean of 2.77.83

The survey also inquired about vehicle ownership, and found a vehicle ownership rate of 98.3%. This proportion falls within a 99% confidence interval of the 96.1% rate of vehicle ownership estimated by the 2000 U.S. Census.84 Similarly, 20.4% of respondents reported belonging to households with just one vehicle, which is within a 99% confidence interval of the target proportion of 17.6%.

Other possible means to compare with the target population are problematic. In the process of compiling surveys, a striking number of surveys included the word retired in response to questions of employment. The choice to respond retired was unprompted, but 5.36% of respondents chose to do so. This figure is not an exact representation, because it was unprompted, but no other question precisely conveys the number of retirees. One could consider

81 The Covington-Atlanta and Covington-Athens corridor were selected because of the presence

of once-active rail lines connecting those regions. In both cases, there are proposals to reopen these rail corridors, even if there doesnt appear to be any impetus to do so in the near future.

82 U.S. Census Bureau; Population, percent change, April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2005, for Newton County, Georgia: 2000

83 U.S. Census Bureau; Persons per Household, for Newton County, Georgia: 2000 84 U.S. Census Bureau; Occupied housing units with no car available: 2000

Miller 27

the number of households without members traveling out of Newton County for employment (34%), but this number is inflated, because the question excludes residents that work within Newton County. One could compare the number of households with one member (15.57%), but this number isnt truly representative, because it excludes retired couples and extraneously includes non-retired single persons. Similarly, the U.S. Census doesnt estimate the retired population, but it does estimate households receiving retirement income (10.82%)85, households receiving social security (15.80%)86, and residents that are over the age of 65+ (9.97%)87. Thus, the surveys two strongest estimates of retired persons fall within the approximate range of measurements provided by the U.S. Census.

Theoretically, the survey could have also inquired upon further demographic information. It was the concern of the researcher that given the tendency of public transportation discussion to center on sensitive issues (notably safety and racism), that asking for more personal information might dissuade the more sensitive members of the target population from responding. The author chose to err on the side of caution, and this was the reason for both the omission of more probing demographic questions, as well as the specific inclusion of the authors local high school affiliation. This concern did not prove to be without merit, as several respondents freely provided additional insight into their feelings towards public transportation, often with an accusatory tone or mild threats.88 Results

The survey was designed to answer three broad questions: What is the nature of public opinion towards public transportation in a rural and rapidly expanding area? Do the opinions of new residents towards public transportation differ from those of long-term residents? And what style of public transportation would be most amenable to its intended users? This section discusses the results, and the following section explores of the surveys shortcomings. 85 U.S. Census Bureau; Households with members receiving retirement income: 2000 86 U.S. Census Bureau; Households with members receiving social security: 2000 87 U.S. Census Bureau; Residents age 65+: 2000 88 A small number of surveys were returned with extended comments on the back of the page,

and many of these applied an accusatory tone or mild threats to question the reason for the survey. These included: Why do the supposed wise always see fit to tell us how to live our lives, and If the trains come to Covington I WILL take my property taxes elsewhere. More examples can be found in Appendix B: Selected Additional Responses.

Miller 28

What is the nature of public opinion towards public transportation in a rural and rapidly expanding area?

Those that reviewed and encoded the returned surveys were struck with the vociferous nature of those opposed to public transportation. The respondents in favor of public transportation were more subdued in their support. For example, Questions five and eight asked for an overall public opinion of public transportation and MARTA, respectively. Both questions yielded a plurality of neutral responses, with slightly more very favorable and favorable choices than poor and very poor. Yet the additional hand-written notes left by some respondents almost entirely consist of strongly negative criticism. (For a partial list of responses, see Appendix B: Selected Additional Responses, page 41). The experience of sorting through the surveys leaves the impression of an overall negative opinion, even though the plurality of responses was neutral, if not slightly positive.

Figure 4: Opinion of public transportation, general case and MARTA

A difference of proportions test shows that opinions of very favorable more often apply

to general public transportation than MARTA, while a significant majority of neutral

responses describe MARTA. Two inferences can be drawn from this data: first, that many

residents are in favor of the concept of public transportation, and second, that few have had

sufficient experience with MARTA to form an opinion on that specific system.

The first inference most directly answers this fundamental research question. But how

reliable is this favorable opinion of public transportation? Question six poses another measure of

Miller 29

public disposition by asking straightforwardly: if public transportation were available, would you use it?

Figure 5: If public transportation were available to places you frequent, would you use it?

With a critical t-statistic of 1.96, these differences of proportion are significant with 95% confidence. This shows that a slight majority of residents are favorable towards public transportation. The second inference is validated by the response to Question seven: how frequently does someone from your household use MARTA (buses or trains)? In this response, the overwhelming majority of respondents reported never using public transportation.

Figure 6: MARTA frequency of use

If not experience, what do these residents base their opinions upon? Question nine asked just that: what are the most important factors affecting your opinion of public transportation? The results demonstrate that the highest concerns among surveyed residents to be around issues of safety, convenience, and cost.

Miller 30

Figure 7: Factors affecting opinions of public transportation

Its worth noting that some factors were listed with both positive and negative connotations. For example: both environment and traffic were described as negative influences about a third of the time they were listed. One respondent attributed this to experience with MARTA buses in DeKalb County. MARTA completed its switch from diesel to natural gas powered buses in 200189, but, from the researchers experience, buses can be cumbersome obstacles to traffic flow on smaller arterial roads. This illustrates a disconnection between residents and the generally noted benefits of public transportation, as well as a stigma towards MARTA specifically.

A small number of respondents appeared to have interpreted the question differently and recorded the experiences that formed their opinions. These respondents cited the experiences of friends on MARTA, word of mouth, and most often the media. Such negative accounts stem from the public opposition to MARTA discussed in the Public Transportation in Metropolitan Atlanta section earlier. This further supports the inference that MARTA bears a greater stigma than public transportation in general. Speaking of Newton County in general, these residents have a generally favorable opinion of public transportation, and bear a neutral opinion of MARTA due to lack of first-hand experience, misinformation, and strong social stigma.

89 Clean Cities National Partner Awards, National Partner Awards. U.S. Department of Energy, May 2001. .

Miller 31

How do the opinions of new residents towards public transportation differ from those of long-term residents?

Such slight preference for public transportation is unlikely to sway any politicians to the aid of public transportation, but the previous questions glossed over differences in respondent demographics. Given Newton Countys booming population growth, one can assume that new residents will continue to relocate to Newton County, and bring with them external experiences and opinions. Also, as Newton County continues to urbanize, one could hypothesize that current residents are likely to share in these external experiences and opinions, if not travel and create their own. Thus, how do the opinions of new residents differ from local attitudes?

Two questions on the survey were designed to categorize respondents by their levels of exposure to public transportation. Question 14 asked respondents to define themselves as native or non-native, and Question 15 asked if respondents had used a transportation system in another city (experienced or inexperienced users). These questions comprise the lines of analytical delineation for comparison of new versus local attitudes.

Figure 8: Overall opinion of public transportation, native and non-native Georgians

The native/non-native breakdown of Question five shows that native Georgians (57.1% of respondents) are significantly more likely to have a very poor or poor opinion of public transportation, while non-natives are significantly more likely to very favorable opinions. Thus strongly supports the inference that new residents are generally more favorable towards public transportation.

Miller 32

Figure 9: Overall opinion of public transportation, experienced and inexperienced users

Residents with experience using other public transportation systems (49.9% of respondents) comprise a significant proportion of neutral opinions towards public transportation, whereas users without experience on other public transportation systems comprise a majority of very favorable responses. More generally, the distribution of experienced residents looks roughly similar to the distribution of the total population, while the distribution of opinion among inexperienced residents is more even.

This contradicts the earlier hypothesis that users without experience are withholding judgment pending experience with public transportation. This trend shows residents without public transportation experience have formed an opinion based on something other than use. The comments presented in response to the question of relevant factors suggest that the media and word of mouth have a dominating effect on opinion.

In general, new residents have more favorable opinions than more tenured residents, and experience is not necessarily the key factor in forming individual opinions.

What style of public transportation would be most amenable to its intended users? While one could develop the argument that the proportion of Newton County residents with public transportation experience is increasing, one only has to look at Census data to prove that the proportion of non-native Georgian residents is increasing. Given this, does one design a public transportation system for the current residents, or towards the preferences a growing segment of the population? The first question regarding preferred transportation style was that of mode choice.

Miller 33

Figure 10: Modal choice, native and non-native Georgians Respondents showed a clear preference for rail over bus, but the plurality of respondents were neutral between the two. Non-native Georgians were less neutral, suggesting that experience with other systems of public transportation disposed one to having a more specific set of preferences. This inference is supported by the distribution of opinion between experienced and non-experienced residents.

Figure 11: Modal choice, experienced and inexperienced users

Miller 34

Most evident is the distaste for buses. A significantly greater proportion of neutral responses came from residents without public transportation experience than those with experience, suggesting that the neutral opinions are tempered by experience. Along what corridor would public transportation be most amenable? Questions four and five asked which counties members of the surveyed household traveled to for purposes of work and other (shopping, sports, etc.).

Figure 12: Frequency of corridor travel, work and other purposes

The data show a strong majority of respondents traveling for both business and pleasure do so along the Atlanta corridor. The majority of respondents report making any trip for other reasons, though this observation is misleading. Individuals making work-related trips would, in theory, do so with greater frequency (such as every weekday, during rush hour), than those who travel to shop or attend an event (perhaps every weekend). A more succinctly phrased question would have measured frequency of travel along these corridors, but the current wording probes an interesting question: should a system be designed to reduce total number of private automobile trips, or to facilitate the movement of the greatest number of people?

Miller 35

Figure 13: Frequency of corridor travel, native and non-native Georgians

Comparing native and non-native corridor use, two interesting trends emerge. Non-natives make a significantly greater proportion of trips towards Atlanta for non-work reasons, suggesting that occurrences of this purpose and direction combination will increase over time. Also, natives compose a plurality of trips towards Athens, suggesting that this corridor may lose dominance over time, and should be less emphasized in future planning.

In summary, residents have a generally favorable opinion of public transportation, and new residents are more favorable in their opinions than others. The plurality of neutral of opinions may be due to lack of familiarity, but experience doesnt correlate with a decrease in stronger opinions thus respondents are likely forming their opinions based on word of mouth or the media. All residents prefer rail to bus, but the strong plurality of neutral opinions suggests that more specific preferences of service are dependent on user experience, and that cost, convenience, and safety trump other concerns. Atlanta is the most heavily trafficked corridor from Newton County, for both a considerable number of work and non-work purposes. Travel to Atlanta is most commonly conducted by non-native residents, who also make less trips towards Athens or in other directions than native Georgians residents.

Shortcomings

A few causes for concern emerged immediately after review of the returned surveys. Most fundamentally, this survey is not a simple random sample, so any statistical assumptions are, in rigor, violated. Subsequent concerns generally fall into one of two categories: self-selection bias among respondents and user interpretation error.

Miller 36

As discussed earlier in this thesis, the survey was distributed to households receiving a bill for water service from the Newton County Water and Sewer Authority in the January and February 2007 billing cycle. This creates a design bias towards residents living in smaller parcels (larger properties are on well water) near major corridors (near water lines, also more likely to receive county water service). Further, the survey distribution method, as it is intended to reduce obstacles for completion, is biased towards water users who do not use online bill pay.

The clearest instance of user error centers on Questions five and eight. Question five asks, What is your overall opinion of public transportation (buses and rail)? Question eight asks, How would you rate MARTA overall? The former is intentionally arranged before any specific Atlanta-based questions about transportation, with the goal being to capture the respondents feelings towards the concept of public transportation, rather than MARTA examples. Understandably, MARTA is the only example of public transportation upon which many respondents can base their opinions, and as a result, this question effectively double-states many respondents feelings towards MARTA. MARTA, however, also carries strong connotations for some, as one respondent elucidated: MARTA is awful, but I ride GRTA everyday to work and its great!! [sic]. Thus, for analytical purposes, the unstigmatized general case may be more reliable.

Another poorly defined question is Question 14 Are you a native Georgian? One respondent took particular offense to this question and neatly summarized the design flaw: This is a stupid question. Ive lived here 65 years and have never considered anywhere else to be home. The concept of native versus non-native is less a scientific distinction than a popular social distinction. This distinction of being native bears weight for social reasons, but for scientific purposes another delineation should have been used. 90 A better indicator may have asked for the approximate number of years spent living in rural or suburban Georgia (with rural and suburban being self-determined relative to the parts of Newton County today).

Additionally, distinguishing between Georgia and not Georgia is far too broad. Respondents from rural Alabama and Manhattan have vastly different levels of experience with

90 The researcher was not born in the survey area, but her family located there when she was

three years old. Even this minor technicality was brought up in conversation at the Leadership Collaborative.

Miller 37

public transportation. A better indicator may have asked the respondent to distinguish between time spent living in a transit accessible area.

Question 15 (Have you spent time in other major U.S. or international cities with public transportation?) does a better job of grasping the level of experience with public transportation, but doesnt distinguish between relevant and irrelevant travel experiences. Some appeared to misinterpret public transportation to include airport shuttles and taxis. This question may provide a more accurate indicator of familiarity with public transportation, but it still doesnt correlate to as assured a population trend as non-Georgians moving into Newton County.

Miller 38

Conclusion It was the intent of this thesis to discern the nature of public opinion towards public

transportation in an area without public transportation where there exist both the seedlings of a larger system and a rapid population in flow. The metropolitan Atlanta area was chosen as a case area because of its representative history with public transportation and public opinion, and Newton County, a quasi-suburban but historically rural county 45 minutes east of Atlanta, was chosen to conduct a specific case study because of the authors familiarity with the area.

The City of Atlanta was chartered as a railroad terminus, and grew to prominence as the States capital because of its proximity to rail. While the nation transitioned from rail to private automobiles streetcars to diesel buses, this change was in the forefront of Atlanta politics. Residents, politicians, and business leaders were bitter and vocal in their opposition to public transportation policies. A few of the most urban counties eventually agreed to join the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transportation Authority (MARTA), but other residents have been reticent to allow MARTA to expand into their neighborhoods. Only after pressure from the EPA, Georgia leaders created the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA), and while this organization has received more public support than MARTA, it has had to adjust its approach to public transportation design.

Newton County is beyond the domain of both MARTA and GRTA, but is nonetheless rapidly experiencing population growth with the rest of the region the Countys population has tripled since 1985. A 15-question survey was sent to 22,000 households in Newton County to answer three questions:

What is the nature of public opinion towards public transportation in a rural and rapidly expanding area?

Newton County residents have an overall positive opinion towards public transportation, but more neutral opinions about their nearest public transportation system, MARTA. A majority of residents never use MARTA, and many of the additional comments betray MARTA to suffer from a lack of familiarity, misinformation, and strong social stigma.

Do the opinions of new residents towards public transportation differ from those of long-term residents?

New residents hold more favorable opinions about public transportation than life-time residents, though experience is not necessarily a key factor in the formation of opinions.

Miller 39

And what style of public transportation would be most amenable to its intended users? Rail is preferred strongly to bus, but most residents are neutral between the two. The top self-reported factors affecting opinion are: cost, convenience, and safety. Experience with other transportation systems leads to less neutral and more specific opinions. Atlanta is the most heavily trafficked corridor from Newton County, for both work and leisure trips. Non-native residents make fewer trips to Athens and along other corridors, but more trips to Atlanta, than native Georgians.

The ideal regional public transportation system for this area is one separate from MARTA (that thus avoiding the inherent stigma), operating towards Atlanta at minimal infrastructural and operating cost, with stops that draw traffic away from major routes, and with maximum visibility and the appearance of safety. GRTAs current regional bus service is operating under these guidelines, and the opinions of the rapidly urbanizing portion of Georgia seem to be stable. Thus, this is likely the most successful long-term strategy for rural and suburban Atlanta. Future research should focus on the adaptation of these preferences to a recommended model of regional public transportation. This recommendation should consider other case studies, from these developing regions of the United States as well as similar areas in the rest of the developed world and in the developing world.

Miller 40

Appendix A: Public Transportation Opinions Survey The following is a survey for Newton County residents about their opinions towards bus and rail public transportation. This survey is part of Ruth Millers (Eastside High School, Class of 2003) senior thesis at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. If you have any questions, please dont hesitate to contact Ruth at newtonsurvey@mit.edu. 1. How many members are there in your household? 1 2 3 4 5 6 2. How many vehicles (cars, trucks, motorcycles) does your household own? 1 2 3 3. In what counties do members of your household work? (Circle all that apply) Newton Rockdale DeKalb Fulton Walton Oconee Clarke Other: 4. In what counties do members of your household go for other reasons (shopping, sports, etc.)? Newton Rockdale DeKalb Fulton Walton Oconee Clarke Other: 5. What is your overall opinion of public transportation (buses and rail)?

Very favorable Favorable Neutral Poor Very Poor 6. If public transportation were available to places you frequent, would you use it?

Yes No 7. How frequently does someone from your household use MARTA (buses or trains)?

More than once a week. Once a week. More than once a month. Once a month. Less. Never. 8. How would you rate MARTA overall?

Very favorable Favorable Neutral Poor Very Poor 9. What are the most important factors affecting your opinions of public transportation in general? 10. How do you compare public buses and trains?

Buses are better Trains are better Both are equal 11. How would you rate MARTA in terms of convenience?

Very favorable Favorable Neutral Poor Very Poor 12. How would you rate MARTA in terms of safety?

Very favorable Favorable Neutral Poor Very Poor 13. How would you rate MARTA in terms of cost?

Very favorable Favorable Neutral Poor Very Poor 14. Are you a native Georgian? If no, where do you consider yourself to be from? 15. Have you spent time in other major U.S. or international cities with public transportation?

(New York City, Los Angeles, London, Paris, Boston, Chicago, etc.) Yes No If yes, did you use public transportation in those cities? Yes No

Please fill out the survey and return it along with your water bill in the provided envelope, or fax it to 770-788-8012 by March 10, 2007.

Miller 41

Appendix B: Selected Additional Responses Those responses written on back of the survey page or below the last question, but not pertaining

to any specific question.

Bad ass kids coming to our area Bad for community Bring property value down Brings crime, violence and that's why we moved here Brings homeless, crime-oriented individuals and drug addicts into family-oriented lives Brings in crime and makes the city dirty Brings in lower class people Brings in lower income families Brings in murders, rapists, stealing al bad things [sic] Brings in too much outside traffic Creates traffic problems, undeniable rise in crime and economic collapse Crime follows the rails, criminals get in and out too fast Dont want near place of dwelling--want to drive to it Dont need it Dont want to have to change trains more than once to reach destination Drag on public money - nepotism Gridlock & 2 hr drive to work; increasing travel times over last 2 years High crime and lower class citizens being bused into the community High fares are defeating the purpose of the system Highly needed, a necessity for many people Husband used to use public transport from Stonecrest, but now you can't park there I am 84.5 years of age and am able to drive no need for this I moved to Newton County to be in the country and escape the buses I own a car Inconvenient because it doesn't serve my area Increase in crime and illegal population Increased traffic Increases the chances of children going places they have not business. It brings in the less favorable dwellers It brings poor people into the county It took one hour to go a 15-minute drive It will bring crime to the area! It will bring down the standard of living! It will bring down gas costs It would change for the worse if we had public transport

Miller 42

MARTA brings crime MARTA brings unwanted individuals MARTA is very one-sided in hiring certain types of people MARTA stands for: Moving Africans Rapidly Through Atlanta Maybe needed for low-income people, not for me. It would destroy our community here. My tax dollars paying for someone else's convenience Negative impact on traffic/type of people it draws Never had to use it not sure where I stand Never used MARTA, used public transit 90% of time in NYC NO MARTA! I WILL MOVE!! Keep Covington/Newton Beautiful! Not in favor at all!!! Makes more pollution! We are not in the city! Do you really want

this here!? Only caters to city folks and folks who wouldn't use to save their lives (whites) Panhendling [sic] that smell worse than death Poor people and trash use public transportation Primitive not to have it, utterly primitive Public transportation brings increase in crime & decrease in property values Retired; might become unable to drive Robbed on MARTA's train 2 years ago; I currently ride GRTA and I love it! Ruins entire area in suburb Safety protection from unfavorables [sic] Slows down traffic Strange people Teens would have a way to get from point A to point B The fumes from the buses are terrible and it's hard to get traffic around them The types of people, drugs or homeless and violence from the big cities The values of majority who use it are sub standard There are families that desperately need public transit There is no public transportation to my knowledge in my area Too easy for crooks and criminals to get into this area. It would bring about more

crime/trouble Too many people here already Traffic, crowds, crime, black people coming to the neighborhood Transportation should be able to work with all counties. Rail service would be best for

speed. Transports crime from Atlanta Trouble always follows public transportation