Design Your Own MARTA Expansion (Atlanta, Marietta: pricing, shop, garages)

[bu2]

I don't think right of way is the issue several have said. Almost any big project will require you buying land and tearing something down. There's no area where 285 or 20 are hemmed in by 40 story buildings on both sides so there is an opportunity to expand. Atlanta's transportation people seem uniquely intimidated by the idea of buying and tearing down. It happens everywhere else in the country where they build a big project. You just have to decide if it is worth the price.

I don't know if its their limited budget that intimidates them, if they are all from the country and intimidated by big city prices or if its just a backlash against Atlanta's history of bulldozing its past. But they just don't seem to even consider it.

[cabasse]

Originally Posted by bu2

That further makes my point. Atlanta has all this planning.

Houston doesn't and has rules to make it car friendly (and also keep people going to retail and restaurants from overrunning residential streets-the real impetus for these rules-a quality of life issue) and still has twice the density of over-planned Atlanta. IMO the car friendly issues are part of the reason it has more density. Its easier to get around in Houston than in the suburbs. The contrast is true in Atlanta. So Atlanta has a congestion issue vs. the suburbs in addition to the normal school and crime issues that most big cities have.

houston is denser because it was built on a grid, and especially because many of its earlier suburbs developed a decade or two before atlanta's, thusly on smaller lot sizes. one could argue that houston is actually more planned due to the existence of its grid, unlike atlanta's "uh-uhh, we're never gonna be a big city" mentality. on top of that, metro houston didn't swallow up nearly as many smaller towns (places like marietta or cumming) during its suburban growth period. most of atlanta's suburbs have grown around these existing towns, which pulled development further out to be closer to their town squares, instead of the next available land closest to atlanta and its suburbs. there's still a decent amount of undeveloped land between other developments in many places not that far out from 285.

on top of all that above, houston's developers have been building their subdivisions and other housing developments noticably more densely, with smaller lot sizes by far. this has more to do with their own business choices, and less to do with any kind of government planning.

the fact that atlanta actually functions at all without any kind of continuous grid, a completely awful arterial road system and too few freeways probably has a decent part to do with the existence of marta in the first place. the [lack of] planning of our road system is terrible.

[NYbyWAYofGA]

Originally Posted by cabasse

houston is denser because it was built on a grid, and especially because many of its earlier suburbs developed a decade or two before atlanta's, thusly on smaller lot sizes. one could argue that houston is actually more planned due to the existence of its grid, unlike atlanta's "uh-uhh, we're never gonna be a big city" mentality. on top of that, metro houston didn't swallow up nearly as many smaller towns (places like marietta or cumming) during its suburban growth period. most of atlanta's suburbs have grown around these existing towns, which pulled development further out to be closer to their town squares, instead of the next available land closest to atlanta and its suburbs. there's still a decent amount of undeveloped land between other developments in many places not that far out from 285.

on top of all that above, houston's developers have been building their subdivisions and other housing developments noticably more densely, with smaller lot sizes by far. this has more to do with their own business choices, and less to do with any kind of government planning.

the fact that atlanta actually functions at all without any kind of continuous grid, a completely awful arterial road system and too few freeways probably has a decent part to do with the existence of marta in the first place. the [lack of] planning of our road system is terrible.

Just because a city is built on a grid system does not automatically mean that it will be denser, as oppose to cities that aren't. If that was the case, (going by that logic) cities such as London, Paris and countless other cities around the world wouldn't be as dense.

[bu2]

the fact that atlanta actually functions at all without any kind of continuous grid, a completely awful arterial road system and too few freeways probably has a decent part to do with the existence of marta in the first place. the [lack of] planning of our road system is terrible.[/quote]

I find it interesting that very little in the sales tax plans by Atlanta, Fulton and Dekalb Counties deals with the awful arterial road system. I didn't expect those entities to propose freeways, but I thought the 1st thing would be what was most needed-better arterial streets.

Instead we get MARTA extensions that aren't on anybody's long term plan and have never been studied (Turner Field and the 1 mile Doraville extension) or have been explicitly rejected by MARTA (Indian Springs to Wesley Chapel). And as mentioned above, noone asked for the North Springs extension which MARTA clearly has wanted to do or the Bankside extension to Cobb Co. which was studied in the past.

[netdragon]

I don't know why people talk about MARTA up I-75 to Cumberland. That route is served by CCT and a light rail connection to the arts center would most likely be CCT. A Perimeter-Cumberland connection would most likely be CCT as well since the current bus routes are CCT served.

CCT is no tiny transit system. CCT's route 10 along Cobb Parkway is the most used bus route in the entire Southeast.

MARTA will benefit from the CCT extensions. It will increase ridership. There is already a card-sharing program. It doesn't need to be named MARTA.

P.S. Another possibility is that it will be served by the Atlanta-Chattahoochee rail (or both)

[toll_booth]

Getting back to what neil and a couple others said earlier, I do agree that there needs to be more suburb-to-suburb connections. "Hub-and-spoke" models get people in and out of town, but you need crosstown transit as well. One corridor I would like to see studied is from the Dunwoody perimeter through Sandy Springs to East Cobb. Johnson Ferry is notoriously log-jammed around rush hour, as are most of the roads from Dunwoody leading to it.

Originally Posted by netdragon

I don't know why people talk about MARTA up I-75 to Cumberland. That route is served by CCT and a light rail connection to the arts center would most likely be CCT. A Perimeter-Cumberland connection would most likely be CCT as well since the current bus routes are CCT served.

CCT is no tiny transit system. CCT's route 10 along Cobb Parkway is the most used bus route in the entire Southeast.

MARTA will benefit from the CCT extensions. It will increase ridership. There is already a card-sharing program. It doesn't need to be named MARTA.

P.S. Another possibility is that it will be served by the Atlanta-Chattahoochee rail (or both)

I agree that it doesn't have to be MARTA. I have heard the idea tossed around of merging MARTA, CCT, Gwinnett's transit, etc. into one regional system, and I think that would be an excellent move for a number of reasons.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by cabasse

the fact that atlanta actually functions at all without any kind of continuous grid, a completely awful arterial road system and too few freeways probably has a decent part to do with the existence of marta in the first place.

There's no doubt our road system could stand some improvement.

However, transit use in Atlanta under 5% of workers, as I recall. (That's not so terrible -- it's only around 9-11% in Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago or San Francisco).

The point is that public transit is only one small piece of the transportation solution. As cool as trains are, I hope we don't get carried with putting all our projected sales tax money into rail That is, assuming it passes and we have any transportation money at all.

[thumpcbd]

Originally Posted by NYbyWAYofGA

Just because a city is built on a grid system does not automatically mean that it will be denser, as oppose to cities that aren't. If that was the case, (going by that logic) cities such as London, Paris and countless other cities around the world wouldn't be as dense.

Actually, it's generally parking minimum that determine density. London, Paris and others were developed when folks had to walk to their destination instead of drive. In many cities like ATL, with parking minimums, you have giant lots surrounding a destination that you have to drive to because of parking minimums mean you need a giant lot out side that prevents, or greatly precludes density without building expensive parking garages to house the cars. It start to become a catch-22 on density and transport using MARTA or another system.

MARTA doesn't go where you want because no one wants to get droped off 1/2 mile from their destination and walk through a parking lot waste land to reach their destintation. In London, NYC ect this doesn't happen since due to densisty, they are many shops close to the exit points of transport.

[NYbyWAYofGA]

Originally Posted by thumpcbd

Actually, it's generally parking minimum that determine density. London, Paris and others were developed when folks had to walk to their destination instead of drive. In many cities like ATL, with parking minimums, you have giant lots surrounding a destination that you have to drive to because of parking minimums mean you need a giant lot out side that prevents, or greatly precludes density without building expensive parking garages to house the cars. It start to become a catch-22 on density and transport using MARTA or another system.

MARTA doesn't go where you want because no one wants to get droped off 1/2 mile from their destination and walk through a parking lot waste land to reach their destintation. In London, NYC ect this doesn't happen since due to densisty, they are many shops close to the exit points of transport.

I see what you're saying. Regardless of whether or not a city is built on a grid system, the level at which a city is built on a human scale with pedestrians in mind is what actually determines the overall density. With more TODs developing around Marta stations and the Beltline, hopefully, Atlanta is well on its' way to becoming more pedestrian oriented and much more dense.

[toll_booth]

Originally Posted by NYbyWAYofGA

I see what you're saying. Regardless of whether or not a city is built on a grid system, the level at which a city is built on a human scale with pedestrians in mind is what actually determines the overall density. With more TODs developing around Marta stations and the Beltline, hopefully, Atlanta is well on its' way to becoming more pedestrian oriented and much more dense.

Mixed-use, higher-density, pedestrian-friendly, etc. developments can indeed serve as a big boost to long-term transit ridership numbers. Look at DC--they're not exactly known for being very dense--they don't even have a single skyscraper, for goodness' sake.