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: [email protected] .]