1. A Comparative Look at Mr. Ryan Gravel's Thesis:
The Belt Line vs. the Atlanta Beltline.
Berkeley C. Teate
Georgia State University

2. 2
Table of Contents:
Figures and Tables
Abstract
Body
 Introduction
 The Beltline: 2002 – 2016
 History of Atlanta
o Political Shifts
o Economic Shifts
o Social Shifts
 The Atlanta Beltline: 2015
 Literature Review
o Paris
o Berlin
o Chicago
o Portland
 Recommendation
 Conclusion

3. 3
Table of Figures & Tables:
Table A:
Proposed Station Information [Thesis, 1995]
# Station Name Neighborhood Served Desinations/Points of Interest Ideas for Stations:
1 Lindbergh
MARTA
Peachtree Hills/Piedmont Road Lindbergh Business/Commercial MARTA North/NE Line
2 Armour Armour Industrial District Coffee Shop for commuters
3 Southern Sherwood Forest/Piedmont
Heights
Ansley Golf Club
4 Easton Ansley Park Ansley Mall/Atlanta Botanical
Gardens
Commercial , Resturants
5 Clear Creek N. Boulevard Park/Virginia
Highlands
Piedmont Park Stretching Area for Joggers
6 Kanuga Virginia Highlands/Midtown Piedmont Park/Grady High/Va-Hi
District
2-3 neighborhood shops
7 Drewry Virginia Highlands
8 Ponce Springs Virginia Highlands/Poncey
Highlands
City Hall East Commercial Development
9 Copenhill Old Fourth Ward/Poncey
Highlands
Carter Center/Freedom Park Information Kiosk - TCC
10 Highland Old Fourth Ward/Inman Park Georgia Baptist Hospital/Freedom
Park
11 Irwin Old Fourth Ward Inman Park King Center/Loft District 2-3 neighborhood shops
12 Airline Old Fourth Ward Inman Park Loft District 2-3 neighborhood shops
13 Piggyback Cabbagetown Fulton Cotton Mill Lofts
14 Inman Park Inman Park/Reynoldtown Freedom Park MARTA East Line

4. 4
15 Flat Shoals Reynoldstown Reynoldtown Commercial District 2-3 neighborhood shops
16 Atlanta & West
Point
Reynoldstown Loft District/Hubert Elementary Café/Gallery – Old Atl Depot
17 Glenwood Ormewood Park Southside High High-Density Transit Dev.
18 Ormewood Ormewood Park/Grant Park West/Slaton Elementary
19 Soldiers' Home Ormewood Park/Grant Park State Police Academy/National
Guard
2-3 neighborhood shops
20 Intrenchment
Creek
Grant Park/Boulevard Heights Grant Park/Cyclorama/Zoo Atlanta Shuttle Stop to Zoo/Cyclo
21 Milton Hill Peoplestown/Grant Park Staton Park 2-3 neighborhood shops
22 Clark Peoplestown/South Atlanta Carver High/Atlanta Federal
Penitentiary
MARTA SE Line
23 Carver Hiegh Point/Carver Homes Slater Elementary/Lakewood
Fairgrounds
Commercial District
24 Freedmen Pittsburgh/Capitol View Manor Public Amphitheater
25 Stewart Pittsburgh/Capitol View/Adair
Park
Atlanta Metro College/Atlanta Area
Tech
Commercial District
26 Adair Adair Park Adair Park/Salvation Army College
27 West End
MARTA
West End/Adair Park West End Commercial District MARTA South Line
28 Rose Circle West End/Oakland City Rose Circle Park
29 Brown West End/Oakland City Wrens Nest/Brown Middle
30 Exterior Line West End/Oakland
City/Westview
Gordon White Park/Cascade 2-3 neighborhood shops
31 Lucile West End/Westview Westview Cemetery/ Commercial Park along Muse Street
32 Langhorn Mozley Park/Asheview Heights Spelman College High-Rise Apartment Tower

5. 5
33 MLK, Jr. Mozley Park/Asheview Heights Booker T. Washington High
34 Washington Park Washington Park Washington Park Stretching Area for Joggers
35 Ashby MARTA Washington Park/Vine City West Side Village Commercial
District
MARTA West Line
36 Louisville &
Nashville
Washington Park/Hunter Hills Herndon Elementary Commercial District
37 Bankhead Bankhead/Grove Park Maddox Park MARTA NW Line
38 Jail Howell Station Fulton County Jail/Industrial District Correctional Academy
39 Howell Station Howell Station Fulton Industrial District Commercial District
40 Blandtown Blandtown Hemphill Waterworks/Chattahoochee
41 Seaboard Berkeley Park Chattahoochee Industrial District Bus Transfer to NW Industry
42 Northside Berkeley Park/Underwood Hills 2-3 neighborhood shops
43 Tanyard Creek Collier Hills/Brookwood Park Tanyard Creek Park High-Density Transit Dev.
44 Collier Collier Hills/Brookwood Park Tanyard Creek Park/Piedmont
Hospital
45 Peachtree Brookwood Hills/Peachtree Hills Bobby Jones Golf
Course/Brookwood
High-Density Transit Dev.
Source: 1995 Beltline Thesis,Ryan Gravel
Table B:
Proposed Line Comparisons for Phasing [1995]:
Northeast Southeast Southwest Northwest
Length (in miles) 6.2 6.3 3.4 6.9
# of Stops (No
MARTA)*
12 12 7** 10**
Average Distance b/w
Stops
0.5 0.5 0.4 0.6

6. 6
Track Shared track Shared track Shared track Shared track
Easy MARTA
Connection
1 – Lindbergh 1- Inman
Park/Reynoldstown
2 – Lindbergh,
Bankhead
Difficult MARTA
Connection
1 – Inman
Park/Reynoldstown
1 – West End 2 – West End, Ashby 1 – Ashby
Approximate acres of
redevelopment sites
800 1300 800 300
Positives  Most points of
interest
 Significant
traffic problems
 Significant Re-
Dev. Land
 Significant
Residential Infill
Opportunities
 Abandoned
Track
 Shortest Lines
 Significant
Residential Infill
Opportunities
 Abandoned
Track
 Significant Re-
Dev. Land
 Massive
Industrial Re-
Dev.
 Abandoned
Track
Negatives  Decreasing
Residential Infill
Opportunities
 No Abandoned
Track
 Little Re-Dev.
Land
 Few Points of
interest
 Moderate
Residential Infill
 Expensive
Traffic Dev.
Notes  Historical
Discrimination
of African Am.
neighborhoods
 Traverses
racially diverse
neighborhoods
 Length = least
effective for city
commuting
problems
 Difficult, but
necessary to
connect
Bankhead,
Buckhead, and
Cobb County
Construction Phase
Recommendations:
2nd/3rd 1st 2nd/3rd 4th
Source: 1995 Beltline Thesis,Ryan Gravel
*The Beltline engages five MARTA Stations – Lindbergh, Inman Park/Reynoldstown, West End, Ashby,and Bankhead
**Washington Park is a stop on both the southwest and northwest lines

7. 7
Table C:
Cost of Portland’s West Line MAX
Cost (in millions)
Design $90
Right-of-Way $64
Construction (including $180 million tunnel) $682
Construction Management $119
Start-Up $8
Total: $963
Source: 1995 Beltline Thesis, Ryan Gravel
Graph A:

8. 8
Abstract
This paper will lightly dissect Mr. Ryan Gravel's original 1996 Georgia Institute
of Technology Thesis titled Belt Line – Atlanta: Design of Infrastructure. I look at the
history and current state of the Atlanta Beltline, climate shifts [political, economic, and
social] between 1999 and 2016, Gravel’s design and recommendations, a brief literature
review based on his comparative transit cities, and a realistic expectation for the
upcoming future. Gravel’s thesis encouraged rapid transit expansion, collaboration, and
light railway development along a 22-mile [abandoned] rail corridor. Through transit
growth, urban revitalization and congestion relief will follow suit. The Atlanta Re-
Development Project has thus far done little to achieve transit success, focusing on urban
revitalization strictly through housing and commercial development. My
recommendation is based on the passing of SB 369 in November 2016 – encouraging
Atlanta, and Fulton and Dekalb Counties to complete a public review of the Beltline Re-
Development Plan, city enforcement of 20 percent affordable family housing units, and a
flat rate sales tax on all vendor items within the county and/or city limits for commuters.
Keywords: transit, development, design

9. 9
Introduction:
In a 2015 report titled ‘Missed Opportunity: Transit and Jobs in Metropolitan
America,’ the Atlanta Metropolitan area was rated the worst in the nation for residents
attempting a daily commute to place(s) of business. Furthermore, only 18 percent of jobs
were accessible by transit – 33 percent of those living within the perimeter [of Interstate
285]. It was numbers like these that inspired a young graduate student named Ryan
Gravel to write his Masters Thesis at the Georgia Institute of Technology on an
alternative method of transportation – a collaboration of heavy and light railways, to
encourage urban revitalization and relieve traffic congestion. In this report, I plan to look
at the history and current state of the Atlanta Beltline, comparing Gravel’s original thesis
to the Atlanta Beltline, Inc. Re-Development Plan, and make a realistic recommendation
accordingly.
The Beltline: 2002 - 2016
To understand the Atlanta Beltline in 2016, it is important to understand the
development of the Beltline following its adoption by the Atlanta Development Authority
(ADA) in 2002. Like any proposal, research, or legislation, the ‘red tape’ comes out when
an idea becomes a reality. Gravel’s idea came to fruition with help of ‘Friends of the
Beltline’ [a well-established non-profit group today]. Within the six years of the
Redevelopment Plan, the City of Atlanta, the ADA, The Beltline Partnership,
Metropolitan Atlanta Regional Transit Authority (MARTA), the Trust for Public Land,

10. 10
and the PATH Foundation also became interest partners. Structurally, the plan was
organized by: concept, re-development plans and qualifications, geographic boundaries
and structural framework, and Beltline Tax Allocation District (TAD) Funding. Lets
focus on concept, plans, and geographic boundaries. Remember to look at this
organization in comparison to Gravel’s initial thesis discussed later.
The concept of the Atlanta Beltline did remain true to Gravel’s thesis – an
endeavor to recreate a city center, capture the positives of urban density, all while
controlling for congestion. It was proposed by ABI that the Beltline would organize
growth around parks, public transit, and trails within the core of the City of Atlanta,
eliminating the need and current pattern(s) of urban sprawl – ‘A livable Atlanta.’ The
Beltline would provide development along Gravel’s proposed 22 miles of historic railway
that surround the City of Atlanta, allowing fewer automobile trips and alternative means
of transportation to jobs, residence and attractions within the City. The Beltline would
offer the preservation of historic buildings and structures. Unfortunately, rapidly
changing political, economic, and social climates succeeded in taking precedence over
both Gravel and ABI’s propositions.
History of Atlanta
Historically, Georgia became a ‘red’ state [or conservative] following Governor
Roy Barnes’ term end in 2003. Our two recent governors, Governor Sonny Perdue and
current Governor Nathan Deal, have done little to encourage public transportation or
urban development. The major railway system, MARTA, is funded entirely by sales taxes

11. 11
– no State of Georgia operational funding is provided. In fact, that makes the MARTA
the largest transportation agency in the United States to not receive operational expenses.
In Governor Perdue’s first term, a sales tax for MARTA railway projects was not
renewed – forcing funding to be cut nearly in half. In fact, according to an Associated
Press report between 2008 and 2013, the State of Georgia cut funding from the
Department of Transportation by $1.27 billion.
The economic climate following Gravel’s 1999 thesis included two wars
overseas, a housing crisis, and the greatest economic recession since the Great
Depression. These events brought on serious budget cuts and unemployment concerns.
Under a conservative leadership, three separate major transportation expansion bills
failed to pass either by Legislative Session or through Referendum – the 2013 T – Splost
transportation tax failed tremendously statewide, restricting a majority of opportunities
for construction, transportation expansion, re-development. Furthermore, the Deal
Administration favored Port Expansion(s) – a near $50 million expenditure – over ground
transportation or city transit options.
Following the Great Recession, in January 2009, the state unemployment rate was
8.9 percent. Throughout the following two years, that percentage would rise and remain
at 10.5 percent of our state population according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. A
total of 468,000 individuals attained their college degree in the State of Georgia in 2010.
10 percent of that population is approximately 46,800 individuals. Imagine that many
college graduates unable to find employment after 4-6 years of hard work [and potential
loan debt]. Refer to the Graph A for a visual. In this type of economic climate, a light
railway composed of 45 individual stops near impossible to consider.

12. 12
Looking at socioeconomic changes of the area surrounding the 22-mile historic
railway, the promise of growth and the ‘chic’ of urban living began to threaten the culture
and history in the region. The Georgia Public Policy Foundation published a study in
February 2015 that described Atlanta’s rapid rate of gentrification. Described by author
Dowell Myers, gentrification is “the opposite of the trickle-down effect”. In laymen
terms, the O4W is handing houses and neighborhoods from the poor to the rich. This time
period aligns almost perfect with the groundbreaking of the Atlanta Beltline project.
According to the report, between 2008 and 2016, 46.2% of the census tracts in the
beltline property experienced this rapid social shift – specifically on the eastside more
commonly known as ‘the Old Fourth Ward.’
In the last decade, the Old Fourth Ward has grown immensely, by both population
and economic infrastructure. However, critics complain that ‘gentrification’ is a threat to
the culture and history that remains. The study also references the American Community
Survey (ACS) 5-year data from 2009-2013, gathering census tract-level data on those
areas with 500 or more residents. The analysis “considered tracts where the median
household income and home value were both in the bottom 40th percentile of a given
metro region.” The City of Atlanta ranked 5th highest in terms of gentrification, falling
behind Portland, OR, Washington, DC, and Seattle, WA.
The Beltline – 2016
Despite nearly two decades of challenges, the Beltline has successfully boomed
on the Eastern Trail, in the Old Fourth Ward. As of early 2016 however, the Beltline

13. 13
Project is at somewhat of a standstill, as it has run out of funding for South and Westside
expansion. Its proposed TAD Funding, which is based on ‘potential growth,’ has run into
a lack of private development sources. In the Redevelopment Plan, there was no talk of
public involvement, which could have been a major source of funding by taxpayer
dollars. Currently, the citizens of Cobb County are agreeing to pay an upwards of $40
Million to fund the new SunTrust Field in Cumberland. This type of support seems
necessary for such an extensive project, especially taking into consideration the majority
of partners are non-profit boards. In an area where the total population has risen from 973
in 2010 to 3,193 in 2013, representing a 228.16% increase, it is disappointing there has
been a lack of community involvement.
Looking at potential success in year 8 of 25 for the Beltline Plan, the Eastern
Border of the O4W continues to develop at a much quicker pace than the regions closer
to Piedmont Avenue and Ponce de Leon, due to Beltline development. This pace has
caused displacement of affordable housing, creating a bottleneck effect. The Historic Old
Fourth Ward Park and Historic District have gone through re-development, but the
majority of new housing is unattainable for low-income residents, ranging $1200 - $2500
for a one-bedroom apartment. Little re-development of the specified sites of Boulevard
Corridor and Renaissance Park, as well as any strong focus of direct improvement of
Boulevard, has begun. Public Transit is still focused on outside of the neighborhood,
safety is still a large concern in regions closer to Boulevard and Piedmont Avenue, and
any senior citizen housing is located in the poorer areas along North Avenue and Ponce
de Leon.

14. 14
The Atlanta Beltline re-development project, as stated in its 2005 plan, aimed to
eliminate the need for urban sprawl by creating ‘a livable Atlanta.’ In the ten years since
that plan was publicized, there has been minimal achievement due to national chain
development like Amli, Post and Camden buying industrial zone land. These
developments do not encourage community bonds to remain strong, seemingly creating
an entire gentrified community within the O4W. Furthermore, it is difficult to
successfully advertise a family approach when 90 percent of these new housing
developments on the Eastern Beltline have been Mixed Use developments with 50+
Units, according to 2015 ACS 1-Year Census Data. The preservation of single-family
units, workforce housing units, and connections to regional transit has statistically failed.
In regards to economic trends, over 1,100 additional housing units were built
within the seven-year period. Of the 6,772 housing units available by the 2010 Decennial
Estimates, almost 4,800 were 50+ Housing Units, meaning large residential facilities
such as apartments. Furthermore, the vacancy rate dropped from 25 percent to just 18
percent, meaning that the demand for these additional housing units was necessary. The
stability of the region, and focus of housing development, seems to be on the younger
Millennial Generation, as 75 percent of the available housing is renter-occupied. This
shows a high mobility rate, something not popular for raising a family or nearing or at
retirement age. Finally, over 40 percent of the available single-family units are within the
range of $150-299,000. When reviewing the Atlanta Beltline Plan, this pricing is not
affordable to low-income and subsidized residents. This high price range for housing may
be a reason that there is such high renter-occupied numbers, or why the additional
housing units are majority 50 plus.

15. 15
As stated, it is important to review public research projects, when preparing to
present an analysis of the growth of the past decade. It is important to understand the
history of policy development in a region, when discussing the ‘bottleneck effect’ of
minorities. It is important to see the amount of potential the Beltline Plan has presented,
and to decide why so little potential from Gravel’s 1999 thesis has been achieved in the
last decade. It is clear that while the Plan has clear goals of connectivity of
neighborhoods, affordable housing, and extended livability, there is a lack of
collaboration between transit, commercial developers and the community to achieve
these common goals.
Literature Review
At the time of Gravel’s thesis, the City of Atlanta was in still in midst of
remediating congestion relief by highway expansion – ultimately contributing to urban
sprawl and the 4.5 million person metropolitan region seen today in 2016. He saw a dire
need for the adoption of stable infrastructure, looking to four separate city models–
specifically Paris, France; Berlin, Germany; Chicago, Illinois; and, Portland, Oregon –
that embraced urban density. Through the expansion of mass transit systems, each city
was able to revive cultural senses while accommodating for exponential growth. Let’s
take a brief look at what Gravel highlighted from each city at the time, and how those
features have or could, take place for the Atlanta Beltline
First, let’s take a look at Paris, France – a thousand year old city of which was
forced to layer its transit through means of adoption and collaborative use of existing

16. 16
systems. Gravel highlights the layering of four separate transit pieces: 1) the Metro,
serving the central city; 2) the RER (Regional Express Rail), serving suburban
commuters; 3) the SNCF trains serving major cities in France with Paris at its center; and,
4) the TGV high-speed trains, connecting to larger European cities like London, Brussels,
and Frankfurt. When I did a bit of research, each was established multiple decades apart
from the other – the Metro in 1900, the RER in the early 1970’s, and the SNCF and TGV
in the 1990’s. However with the continued expansion of a city not built for 10 million
people, the government and community adopted a service much needed.
The city of Berlin, Germany adopted the S-Bahn in the mid 1800’s – well before
the Metro of Paris, France. Gravel highlights the ‘Onkel Toms Hutte’ station, which in
1931 integrated industrial, residential and commercial complexes conveniently along its
train platforms and surrounding square radius. Additionally, the residential complexes
incorporated 2,000 subsidized housing units - which 65 years later were some of the most
sought after housing in the city of Berlin.
Gravel also looked at the El of Chicago, Illinois – today known simply as ‘L’ –
which stands for ‘Elevated Line’. Built in 1893, the ‘L’ is the fourth largest rapid transit
system in the United States in 2016. At the time of Gravel’s thesis, he highlighted the
simplistic structure designed for riders arriving strictly on foot. Without parking lots, the
‘L’ is composed of simply turnstiles, stairs, platforms and railway. According to the
Chicago Transit Authority (CTA), the ‘L’ is credited with fostering the growth of
Chicago’s dense city center, once a strictly industrial city – today a hub for entertainment,
commercial real estate and science and business industries.

17. 17
From reading Gravel’s thesis, it seems Portland, Oregon’s ‘TriMet’ was the most
apt transit system from which Atlanta could adopt helpful features for the Beltline [and
overall transit] expansion. Gravel looked at the ‘marriage’ of transportation and land use
planning – re-development structures, natural environment protections, and community
ridership programs. According to the TriMet webpage, these ridership programs allow
riders to change between heavy rail, bus and line transit in Portland by the same fare
system. Refer to Table C for a monetary description of this planning expansion.
Although Gravel’s argument for these city features seems far-fetched today, in
1999 Democratic Governor Roy Barnes had just been re-elected. Furthermore, the 1996
Atlanta Olympics had encouraged fast-paced growth in the city center. Today, the Atlanta
Beltline reflects little to no adoptions of these city comparisons. Considering it’s yet to
successfully connect to any MARTA transit railway station, there are no collaborative
county or alternative transportation layering efforts along the Beltline. Furthermore,
parking is vast along the Beltline – countering Gravel’s argument for simplicity like the
‘L’ of Chicago. Despite it’s ‘walkability’ advertisements, parking thanks to structures
such as Ponce City Market have increased lot capacity ten-fold.
However, looking at the S-Bahn and TriMet, it seems the ABI did attempt to
incorporate some of Gravel’s urban density comparative suggestions. Today, along the
Eastside Beltline Trail, residential and commercial complexes have sprung up over night.
Based on the 2015 ACS 3-Year Estimates, over 4,500 new multi-units have made their
homes within the Eastside 6.2-mile radius. The South and West Beltline trails are also
attracting residential and commercial real estate properties. It is important to keep in
mind though, that despite urges for 20 percent minimum affordable housing units per

18. 18
complex, only 4 percent of the 4,500 units fall into the ABI ‘Smart Tax Incentive’
program. Lastly, the Beltline has become well known for its green space and community
partnerships. New parks including the Old Fourth Ward Historic Park have attracted
music festivals, a Beltline race series, and over 10,000 visitors per day according to the
ABI webpage.
So what does this mean? In his initial thesis, Gravel intended for the Beltline to
assist in reviving a cultural sense of city and relieving congestion – his reasons for city
transit comparisons. Nearly 20 years later, the Beltline seems to have succeeded in the
start of an urban revival. However a transit transformation, partially due to a shift in party
administration and partially due to the economic recession in the late 2000’s, still has yet
to come full circle. Taking into account the current profile of the Atlanta Beltline,
Gravel’s original design and recommendations, as well as the near two decades since
Gravel’s thesis was published, let’s look at an alternative better fit for the Atlanta Beltline
in 2016.
Recommendations:
Initially, I was going to propose three separate recommendations, each which
would focus on a different aspect of Gravel’s 1999 Thesis – Beltline Phasing Costs,
Community Re-Development, and Transit Stations. However in March 2016, a legislative
opportunity was passed upon which I will base my recommendations. Senate Bill (SB)
369 was passed by a vote of 157 – 4 on SineDie [final legislation day]. SB 369, titled the
Atlanta Transit Expansion Bill, allows the City of Atlanta to pursue a $2.5 billion

19. 19
expansion of MARTA if signed [by Governor Deal] and approved by referendum
[statewide ballot in November 2016]. This expansion would allow for the following: 1) a
rise in sales tax from 8 to 8.5 percent in the City of Atlanta; 2) a rise in sales tax in Fulton
County by .25 percent; and, 3) rise in sales tax in Dekalb County by a .75 percent.
According to MARTA Board Chairman Robbie Ashe, the projects list sets aside a
majority of the funds for Beltline transit, specifically: 1) light transit lines along the 22-
mile circle; 2) infill rail stations; and, 3) a collaborative integration of the constructed
light and heavy transit lines. Looking back at Gravel’s thesis, these project proposals
align more clearly than the ABI Re-Development Plan ever did. Furthermore, these three
geographic regions highlight and complete the 22-mile corridor for the original and
proposed beltline plans by both Gravel and the ABI. Refer to Tables A and B, which
offer both Gravel’s light-rail transit suggestions as well as phasing steps. Chairman Ashe
specifically discussed concerns on phasing, as the tax and overall budget of $2.5 billion
will be allocated through 2057. By following these suggestions – or by using Gravel’s
suggestions as a template – there should be less legislative concern and a greater ability
to get things started.
Lastly, if the referendum in November 2016 is passed, I recommend this project
list to be reviewed, but also additional implementation suggestions as follows: a 10-year
public review of the O4W Master Plan; a District Policy proposed to the City of Atlanta
requiring all residential facilities with 50+ Units required to allocate 20 percent at an
affordable low-income price for families; an integration of the current non-profit and
private groups funding the Beltline and O4W separately; and, a District Policy proposed
to the City of Atlanta requiring all investors in the Atlanta Beltline Redevelopment

20. 20
Project to pay an annual flat rate to benefit community Redevelopment within the O4W
‘low-income’ neighborhoods, in order to rent space on the current Eastern Beltline.
Conclusion
I looked at the history and current state of the Atlanta Beltline, climate shifts
[political, economic, and social] between 1999 and 2016, Gravel’s design and
recommendations, a brief literature review based on his comparative transit cities, and a
realistic expectation for the upcoming future. Gravel’s thesis encouraged rapid transit
expansion, collaboration, and light railway development along a 22-mile [abandoned] rail
corridor. Through transit growth, urban revitalization and congestion relief will follow
suit. The Atlanta Re-Development Project has thus far done little to achieve transit
success, focusing on urban revitalization strictly through housing and commercial
development. My recommendation is based on the passing of SB 369 in November 2016
– encouraging Atlanta, and Fulton and Dekalb Counties to complete a public review of
the Beltline Re-Development Plan, city enforcement of 20 percent affordable family
housing units, and a flat rate sales tax on all vendor items within the county and/or city
limits for commuters. With more time, I would dissect Ryan Gravel’s thesis more
thoroughly, looking at his specific transit stop designs, public-private partnership
suggestions, his four additional arguments [in addition to the city comparisons], as well
as his alternative recommendations.

21. 21
Sources:
Atlanta Beltline, Updated April 2016, http://beltline.org
Belt Line – Atlanta: Design of Infrastructure, Ryan Gravel, http://beltline.org/wp-
content/uploads/2012/04/Ryan-Gravel-Thesis-1999.pdf
Politi-Fact, Transportation in Georgia, Updated Febrauary 2015,
http://www.politifact.com/georgia/article/2015/mar/04/fact-checking-georgias-bumpy-
road-transportation-c/
Transit on Beltline, Atlanta Journal Constitution, March 2016,
http://www.myajc.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/marta-expansion-bill-
scores-victory-in-legislature/nqrzK/
2008 – 2013 American Community Survey Census Data,
https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/