It’s edited by Charlie Harper, whom some Savannahians might know because of his regular op-ed columns in the SMN.

I’ve got a new post up today — Savannah, Turnout, and TSPLOST — arguing that a weak Democratic turnout in Chatham County on July 31 will doom the coastal region TSPLOST.

Last week I wrote a couple of posts: State revenues still far behind pre-recession levels and Widespread confusion over economic rationale for harbor deepening.

For the time being, I’ll probably do occasional posts here to let readers know what else they can find over there.

Cheers.

If passed in that region, there would be a 1% additional sales tax added that would go directly toward transportation infrastructure and transit.

Today the AJC has a really interesting piece that tackles a fundamental question: Will sales tax shorten Atlanta commutes, reduce traffic?

From the article:

As the vote approaches, the Atlanta Regional Commissionâ€s traffic-simulation computers have gamed out the 10-year showdown between the tax and its mighty foe, traffic congestion. The resulting study predicts how the referendumâ€s $6.14 billion regional project list is likely to change metro Atlantans†commutes and job prospects.

The lesson, say planners: The needle is really hard to budge.

Holding the line against decay is an accomplishment. If some spots edge toward transformation, thatâ€s a bonus. Regionwide, metro drivers in 2025 would waste 128,000 fewer hours in traffic each day than they would if the referendum doesnâ€t pass, the ARC found.

But theyâ€d still waste 1.8 million hours a day.

On average, the number of metro Atlantans able to reach job centers in under 45 minutes would rise just 6 percent by car, and about 20 percent by bus or train, if the projects are built.

The ARC study is not exactly new, but this seems a good time to cover it so extensively. The report was released in February: Travel Impacts of the Transportation Referendum.

The gains might sound slight, but 128,000 fewer wasted hours per day would mean huge things for affected residents — they’d have more time with families and friends, and more time to be engaged in other productive activities. They would presumably end up wasting less fuel and contributing less to air pollution.

At the same time, I have to wonder about the sustainability of cities like Atlanta where so many residents are so dependent on their cars and spend so much time, money, and energy in their daily commutes. Even though the TIA would be investing something around half the money in transit projects rather than road improvements, I suspect over the long run that far more transit will be needed. More importantly, unwieldy metro areas like Atlanta need to figure out how to get more workers living closer to their jobs. On the worst days, my daily commute to and from Armstrong takes less than 45 minutes — and sometimes takes less than 30. I cannot imagine how much quality of life would be reduced if that number were doubled.

I’ve got an image here from the ARC report.

Only it’s not.

I talked about some of the financial implications of the removal in my City Talk column on Sunday: The economic benefits of removing Savannah’s I-16 flyover In that column, I note that about 9 acres (including about 1000 feet of street frontage) will be freed up for development and likely sold to private developers, that the land will then be on the tax rolls in perpetuity, and that new businesses will generate tax revenues in perpetuity. Right now, with a big ugly road on it, that land costs taxpayers money in maintenance and general upkeep; when that land is in private hands, it will be a revenue generator.

I stopped short of estimating that revenue because there are just too many variables right now, given the unknowns about the final design and given the precarious state of the economy.

And the improved street connectivity will be a boon for automobile drivers, for cyclists, for pedestrians, for residents, and for commercial property owners throughout the entire western half of downtown.

Last fall, I made a post with links to a column addressing the concerns about traffic: The I-16 flyover removal and traffic flow.

I wrote in part:

The removal of the I-16 flyover will actually improve traffic flow in the southwest quadrant of the Historic District. I know that conclusion is counter-intuitive — we expect removing road capacity to hurt traffic.

But the flyover is pretty much a straitjacket; it forces drivers to go places they may not want to go, it shuts down other logical options and creates problems on its edges, it limits the options of drivers who have no intention of getting on the highway, and it provides a quick route into the city at the expense of even a halfway acceptable route out.

This isnâ€t just me making this up, by the way. Urban planners like Christian Sottile have long advocated the removal of the flyover, and the technocracy of GDOT has endorsed the removal as not only acceptable, but as an improvement over the current configuration.

The single weakest argument against the removal is also the one that I hear the most, at least among those objections dealing with traffic. As I noted in the column, Iâ€m constantly hearing people say that MLK canâ€t handle the additional incoming traffic, but every single car leaving the city via I-16 has to travel on or across MLK already.

As I said in this week’s City Talk column, I don’t know whether that July 31 vote on a new 1 percent sales tax will pass in the Savannah region or in the 11 other regions across the state.

But given the implications for revenue, for traffic, and for just a better urban design that makes a thriving neighborhood possible, the removal of the flyover is one of the key reasons I might support the tax.