Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Am I the only one who thinks it's typically a lot worse outside of 285?
I feel like 85 past Spaghetti Junction, north I-75, and GA 400 OTP are all nightmares. I know I-20 east between 285 and Panola is bad, and 75 south gets clogged chronically before the 19/41 split.
The I think the main traffic issues intown are the Connector (really anything near the I-20 interchange) and the 85/400 merge.
Urban and suburban arterials alike are atrocious. Yesterday down in Union City of all place I was delayed 20 minutes because a minor accident had blocked the main drag. Parts of Gwinnett are a hopeless mess around 5PM. Fleeing to the suburbs to avoid traffic is a flawed strategy to say the least. Unless by suburb you mean like Meriwether County--no traffic down there.
I don't go out into the suburbs (OTP) during rush hour, but weekends and mid-day the arterial roads in Atlanta are terrible compared to the suburbs. Its not unusual to take 45 minutes to go 6 or 7 miles to Perimeter Mall. Similarly its hard to get to the Lenox area. And getting anywhere east-west between I-20 and I-285 north is really difficult. A traffic expert was quoted as saying only one of the top 20 metro areas had worse arterials than Atlanta. Having been in all of them its hard to imagine who that was (Seattle? Boston?). He commented about how so many of our arterials are narrow two lane country roads with no left turn lanes (they were appropriate in 1930). When I left Houston for Atlanta, I thought I would get away from the heat & humidity (true-its all relative, if you've lived in Houston, Hotlanta is a joke), mosquitos (wrong-Atlanta is a forest filled with as many mosquitos as the swamplands of Houston) and traffic (also wrong-I will never complain about Houston traffic again).
I have to imagine timeframe and difficulty of track construction for the two is more or less similar, assuming you are building tracks across a field or something. Tens of millions of dollars of materials orders will get you bumped up in the priority list; putting the physical tracks together is the easy part.
To be clear: ROW for light rail definitely COULD be cheaper. You could do the type of thing gtcorndog is talking about and use the bridge over 17th street, go through AS, turn up Northside, and so forth. But you're not going to get 50mph or close to it in terms of average speed through AS, even if you prioritize the stoplights and everything. People can and will jaywalk; there will be obstructions and stuff that force the tram to stop--every single day this stuff will happen.
If you design an arrow-straight, grade-separated system that WILL have similar top speeds to MARTA, you are going to spend so much that you might as well just build MARTA. I think there's a lot to be said for making as much of your transit compatible with the existing technology you already have (for example, Portland, which has invested very heavily in LRT and has a whole circulator system downtown on the surface streets, would be rather foolish to spend a billion dollars building a tunnel under downtown for a brand new subway system).
We happen to have a badass subway, too. Let's expand it.
Dallas didn't have heavy rail and built their system with grade separated light rail. Where they cut corners was having the lines run in traffic downtown. They've discovered as they continue to expand the system that they've reached the point where it is creating gridlock downtown and they need changes. Unfortunately for them, they've spent their money for the next 20 years on existing and committed lines. Houston's light rail runs in the center of the street and created a large number of traffic accidents for the first couple of years and (as was predicted) created gridlock in the Texas Medical Center area. It wasn't as bad north of there as Houston had a good grid system closer to downtown. They've eased the situation a little by building two new north-south roads into the Texas Medical Center. Atlanta, unfortunately, seems oblivious to the impact.
[quote=testa50;20490702]Joking aside, I agree with gtcorndog that we've gotta get this thing to pass, first and foremost. 75/25 would be unacceptable to many/most. I'm not too firm on exactly what the optimal split would be if it were up to me; it is what it is.
I think this parochialism and discussion of the transit/road split is part of the problem. Personally I wouldn't care if it was 100% transit or 100% roads (not that either option would pass). I want the most effective use of the $. Now my opinion is that the arterial system, not freeway interchanges and not mass transit, is where the biggest deficit in the area is. This list, at least in Cobb/Gwinnet/Fulton/Dekalb is focusing on the big $ freeway interchanges and mass transit. I don't believe the arterial system here can support significantly higher densities. And without the higher densities you can't support significant expansion of rail transit. Many don't seem to understand the lack of density in Atlanta. By comparison, sprawling, not very dense Houston in 579 square miles has 3,623 per square mile. In Fulton County in 529 square miles, the density is 1,741 per square mile. Even if you make an unrealistic comparison of all of Houston vs. the city of Atlanta only, Atlanta is only 3,181 per square mile in its 132 square miles.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,993,141 times
Reputation: 7333
Quote:
Originally Posted by bu2
I think this parochialism and discussion of the transit/road split is part of the problem. Personally I wouldn't care if it was 100% transit or 100% roads (not that either option would pass). I want the most effective use of the $. Now my opinion is that the arterial system, not freeway interchanges and not mass transit, is where the biggest deficit in the area is. This list, at least in Cobb/Gwinnet/Fulton/Dekalb is focusing on the big $ freeway interchanges and mass transit. I don't believe the arterial system here can support significantly higher densities. And without the higher densities you can't support significant expansion of rail transit. Many don't seem to understand the lack of density in Atlanta. By comparison, sprawling, not very dense Houston in 579 square miles has 3,623 per square mile. In Fulton County in 529 square miles, the density is 1,741 per square mile. Even if you make an unrealistic comparison of all of Houston vs. the city of Atlanta only, Atlanta is only 3,181 per square mile in its 132 square miles.
Oh geez. I really wish people would stop using these ridiculous population density argument like they actually mean something. Population density is literally just The amount of people divided by the amount of available land area. It is not a calculation of how the specific land and people are built up. A good example is how you compared the size of the city of Houston with that of Fulton County. Did you ever think to look at the shape of either?
This is Harris County (which is 1729 square miles):
Harris County LEPC Map Base (http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/dem/CouncilsCommittees/harriscountylepcmap.htm - broken link)
That huge blob in the center of Harris County is the city of Houston which takes a considerably larger amount of land area east and west than Fulton County does which is extremely long north to south and extremely narrow east to west. The only similarity the City of Houston and Fulton County share in regards to land area is that their square mileage is similar.
Also, while city of Atlanta has an "official" population density of 3200 ppsm as the Census 2010 (which is highly disputed and has been challenged by the city), another misnomer about population density is that the density is somehow evenly distributed. While that grand total number seems low, most neighborhoods in the city are built up with a significantly larger population density and build density. By using this resource (Mapping the 2010 U.S. Census - NYTimes.com) you can see that the majority of the neighborhoods in the city of Atlanta are well above 3000 ppsm, and Central Atlanta (those neighborhoods corresponding to the pre-1952 annexation of Buckhead and some neighborhoods on the South and Westside) has a population density of around 8000 ppsm all combined. This is also the area in which the Beltline will be built.
Now I don't write this post to pick on you, but if you are going to discuss these matters you should at least take the time to actually research what those numbers actually mean rather than just stating them as if the words themselves have some sort of explanation.
I think this parochialism and discussion of the transit/road split is part of the problem. Personally I wouldn't care if it was 100% transit or 100% roads (not that either option would pass). I want the most effective use of the $. Now my opinion is that the arterial system, not freeway interchanges and not mass transit, is where the biggest deficit in the area is. This list, at least in Cobb/Gwinnet/Fulton/Dekalb is focusing on the big $ freeway interchanges and mass transit.
I don't know about that.
Gwinnett's road list includes one new interchange on an interstate, $50 million in buses, and $95 million in light rail "preliminary work" (which I wish they'd better define). Besides that, it includes a 2 mile extension of Sugarloaf Parkway (which will be limited access), making 316 limited access almost to the Barrow line, a bridge over 316 for an existing arterial that currently dead ends there, extending Satellite Blvd over 85, extending Club Drive over 85, widening Peachtree Pky, Pleasant Hill, and Abbots Br as they go into N Fulton, widening multiple portions for Buford Hwy and SR 20, and so on. These are all arterial improvements, not big interchange projects, and they cost a lot more than all of Gwinnett's transit and interchanges combined (at least in amount funded by this tax).
North Fulton has roughly 15 miles of widened roads, but does indeed have lots of transit and interstate work too.
Cherokee has no transit or interchange work. Neither do Douglas or Rockdale. Henry has one new interchange, but has over 20 miles of widened roads and 2 miles of brand new connecting road.
I haven't studied Cobb, Dekalb, or South Fulton in detail yet.
As you know, this tax will also devote a billion-odd dollars towards local governments for use on their roads, basically none of which will go towards new interchanges and stuff.
This tax definitely includes a LOT of work on our arterial streets. It will improve probably 100 miles of roads, which is no minor feat.
Quote:
I don't believe the arterial system here can support significantly higher densities. And without the higher densities you can't support significant expansion of rail transit.
As you note, I was not talking about the 6 outer counties. And converting 316 to a freeway (I was including freeway overpasses in the "interchange" comment) and essentially building a new one in Sugar Loaf Parkway aren't arterial projects.
As you note, I was not talking about the 6 outer counties. And converting 316 to a freeway (I was including freeway overpasses in the "interchange" comment) and essentially building a new one in Sugar Loaf Parkway aren't arterial projects.
So when you make an intersection between two arterial roads grade-separated it isn't an arterial project?
Have you driven on 316 in the last 10 years? It's probably a contender for THE single worst roadway in the whole metro. I've seen backups five miles long not caused by an accident. It affects arterials for a good mile in every direction as people go very long distances to avoid it.
316 to limited access is EXACTLY the type of project the tax should fund. I'm not concerned with whether you consider it technically an arterial roadway project or whatever.
So when you make an intersection between two arterial roads grade-separated it isn't an arterial project?
Have you driven on 316 in the last 10 years? It's probably a contender for THE single worst roadway in the whole metro. I've seen backups five miles long not caused by an accident. It affects arterials for a good mile in every direction as people go very long distances to avoid it.
316 to limited access is EXACTLY the type of project the tax should fund. I'm not concerned with whether you consider it technically an arterial roadway project or whatever.
I've driven it. I agree its a good project. I think some of the interstate exchanges and transit projects are good also. I was just pointing out that in the inner areas arterials aren't getting much attention. And 316 is not an arterial-its a freeway project that never got completed. It was another case of Georgia taking the cheap route.
And in my limited Gwinnet County experience, I think Jimmy Carter between Buford Hwy and I-85 is worse. Its been horrible every time I've been there. And that arterial project seems to have been dropped from the list.
Article in AJC noting Atlanta has one of worst transit services in country for access by those without a car. As usual, I don't have a link...
It was a Brookings study. I think they also did the study a few weeks ago showing Atlanta was 91 of 100 on how effective transit was.
Very few of those above Atlanta have as good a rail system as Atlanta does. There's a lot more to good mass transit than simply building rail lines.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
