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.
No I never said speed was one of the advantages, that's what you keep arguing. And if that is the case with people being able to walk what would be the point of having any transit in that area? I think that is just the opinion of a few people that don't want to wait.
Part of the reason people walk is because of the headways. It's kinda tough to buy 80, $1.5 million streetcars, ya know. You could run three times as many buses with the same amount of money. And then streetcars are more limited in mobility than buses. So when you combine fewer vehicles (more expensive) and inferior mobility (can't maneuever around traffic) you get longer headways. Pretty simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfarley30
A bus isn't going to change the perception of a bus. If that's the case lets put the Xpress style commuter buses on all local routes since they are nicer. A bus is a bus and people are going to have a stigma about it.
Yeah, you keep saying that, but the Vegas example completely blows that thesis to smithereens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfarley30
Commuter buses and BRT buses will always do better than local buses.
That's not true either. Do you think commuter buses do better than local buses in Washington, DC and NYC?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfarley30
That doesn't mean we put them on a route that is only about 2 miles long. I've even said in past blogs that for Peachtree and route #110 that "specialized buses" should be used. But this is a route that is very long where the BRT buses you refer to would make a difference. But at the end of the day if the frequency isn't there you could put a space shuttle on the route and no one would ride it.
And you think you're going to get better headways with a streetcar?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfarley30
Again the type of bus doesn't mean nothing over the level of service. You are trying to make local routes into BRT routes and that wouldn't work.
That's not what I said. I just said get fancy, cool-looking buses that look like streetcars but are cheaper than streetcars. I mean, there's really no difference between the two except for the fact that the streetcar has a track.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfarley30
Again, you are trying to make it about branding and that's not the issue. The type of service you are mentioning isn't for short routes. It's for long commuter style routes.
That's just how Las Vegas does it. There's no reason you can't take the same vehicle and run it along a two mile route.
The bus can basically do everything a streetcar can. I don't see any real argument for the streetcar other than, "I want it! I really really want it! Choo choo! It's so cool! Please! Give it to me!!!!"
If the main focus is on promoting development, the city can simply subsidize development either directly or indirectly. No expensive streetcar required.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfarley30
And the lines were tore up during a time when the car was made a priority, which we have seen was a mistake, which is why a lot of cities are reinvesting in them. But how many times have steetcar lines been ended and pulled up compared to route changes on a bus?
I don't think it was a mistake to rip them up. Streetcars gave way to a new technology just as horse-drawn streetcars gave way to electric streetcars.
And I'm pretty sure more streetcars have lines have been pulled up in Philly than bus lines completely terminated. The local 23 bus that runs through my neighborhood hasn't gone anywhere. The demand for transit doesn't simply evaporate because one mode of transit replaces another. It evaporates for reasons that have nothing do with the transit itself (i.e., riots, white flight, depopulation, population shifts, etc.).
Besides, the beauty of the bus is that the route can be changed when a water main breaks or construction along the route is otherwise necessary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfarley30
Again, not about speed and competing with that type of transit. It seems like you aren't making the destinction between SC, LRT, and HRT and what each type is for.
If it's not about speed, then what's the point? And I'm comparing a regular local bus route to a streetcar route.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfarley30
A line down the middle of the street is better than a bus stuck behind a line of traffic and if something breaks down no matter what it is your commute is eff-ed. I have a lot more!
No, it's not. The streetcar runs down the middle of the street in Philadelphia and it gets stuck in traffic just like the bus. The only difference is that the city's not paying hundreds of millions of dollars more for people to be stuck in traffic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfarley30
So putting that technology in 4 streetcars is cheaper than putting it in 600 buses?
It takes 600 buses to run the same route the streetcar is gonna run?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfarley30
And I agree that tax incentives and proper zoning help. Now tell the developers that you are doing that for areas like Campbellton Rd and Metro Pkwy and see how many jump! Not many. Now those are areas you should be arguing for your "very rad, futuristic-looking bus that's rather indistiguishable from a train in outward appearance."
That's not the same at all. But I mean, you could ask the same question about the streetcar. Would running a streetcar down Campbellton Road or Bankhead Highway make developers jump out of their seats to build condos?
That's not the same at all. But I mean, you could ask the same question about the streetcar. Would running a streetcar down Campbellton Road or Bankhead Highway make developers jump out of their seats to build condos?
No, its a majority black. Developers are weary of those areas. Look at Cascade and Peyton Forest. Upper middle to upper class AA families, but little retail.
Quote:
And I'm pretty sure more streetcars have lines have been pulled up in Philly than bus lines completely terminated. The local 23 bus that runs through my neighborhood hasn't gone anywhere. The demand for transit doesn't simply evaporate because one mode of transit replaces another. It evaporates for reasons that have nothing do with the transit itself (i.e., riots, white flight, depopulation, population shifts, et
Still trying to compare a NE city that developed before WW2 and cars to a Sunbelt city that is mostly designed for cars.
Look at MARTA and it's current rail system. They cut 41 bus routes to maintain some decent level of rail frequency. Rail, regardless of what type will always be a priority over buses because there was more invested into building and creating the service. If I invest more into any project than something else wouldn't you focus on that project versus something you didn't put a lot in? Heck, if I was dating a girl and invested more into one girl than the other why would I waste my time on a girl that I did little for versus a girl I spent more time with and got to know better? I'm choosing the one I've invested in more!
So you would cut several bus lines for a two mile streetcar route? That sounds fair to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfarley30
Here you just aren't making sense. Of course they are symbols of their respective cities. So what if they were build for a purpose. The WTC was a symbol of NYC but it was build for the purpose of being and office tower and functioned as such until 9/11. Now it's a symbol of freedom for NYC and the world. Again, I said when you thing about transportation symbols for each city you do think about what I mentioned. And of course things build a long time ago aren't going to cost what they do today. Tell those people that had the foresight to invest back then thank you. I've already made it clear what people think of when they think of Atlanta. I never said it would change but having multiple options for transit in a city known for cars is a good thing.
No, the NYC Subway is not a symbol. To the extent it serves as a "symbol" (which I don't think it really does, but whatevs), it's only because the subway became associated with the city over time. It's not like city planners came together and said, "Hey, let's make a statement and build a subway system!" The subway was largely built out of necessity. And skyscrapers are built out of necessity and serve an important function on an island that's short on space. And the demand is there for skyscrapers. The demand is not there for the streetcar; people are just hoping that the streetcar creates its own demand. But Portland's streetcar expansion shows the folly of that thinking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfarley30
Please tell me why I'm not citing facts? I'm citing facts that were cited for the page I got the info from? And yes I read your comment. It just says development WOULD HAVE occured, which I've stated is the case when looking at areas around CBD.
It says "would have occurred irrespective of the streetcar." How could the streetcar have been the catalyst for development if it would have occurred anyway? And the study went on to say that a number of factors were in place prior to the streetcar's announcement. The streetcar did not cause the city to change its zoning requirements, etc. You completely made that up.
No, its a majority black. Developers are weary of those areas. Look at Cascade and Peyton Forest. Upper middle to upper class AA families, but little retail.
That's my point. If the streetcar can't generate development along Campbellton Road, then why should we expect a bus to be able to?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cqholt
Still trying to compare a NE city that developed before WW2 and cars to a Sunbelt city that is mostly designed for cars.
It really makes no difference. The idea that you can convince people to ride transit by making it "cool" is adorably naive. People will ride transit when it's practical. And so long as it's faster to drive, and as long as parking is cheap, people will drive all around your adorable streetcar to get where they need to go.
There's no "transit culture" in the Northeast. It's get your ass on transit or pay the cost to park. Most people just get on transit.
That's my point. If the streetcar can't generate development along Campbellton Road, then why should we expect a bus to be able to?
It really makes no difference. The idea that you can convince people to ride transit by making it "cool" is adorably naive. People will ride transit when it's practical. And so long as it's faster to drive, and as long as parking is cheap, people will drive all around your adorable streetcar to get where they need to go.
There's no "transit culture" in the Northeast. It's get your ass on transit or pay the cost to park. Most people just get on transit.
"Pay the price to park" can have a very negative effect on commerce in most cities outside of NYC. It's very risky to not provide parking or to make it more expensive than the market will allow...not that it isn't a good idea in the hopes of promoting public transit use, but it can backfire and has in many cases.
The "faster to drive" is a very good indicator of whether people will use transit or not. I'm on board with that one, because my time is usually a factor in making a decision of whether to use MARTA or drive. Buses are often seen as a negative when factoring time, at least in Atlanta. It can easily take WAY longer than driving. Using rail is usually a wash for me.
"Pay the price to park" can have a very negative effect on commerce in most cities outside of NYC. It's very risky to not provide parking or to make it more expensive than the market will allow...not that it isn't a good idea in the hopes of promoting public transit use, but it can backfire and has in many cases.
Not really. If all of the downtown lots get built on, the price of parking will continue to increase until people have to start doing a real transportation cost-benefit analysis. King & Spalding and CNN are not just going to up and leave because the price of parking is expensive. Likewise, City Hall and Phillips Arena are not going anywhere. There are certain things that are largely fixed that people have to go to regardless. You just can't avoid work because you don't want to pay for parking or ride a train. And there will always be certain attractions downtown that people won't mind paying parking to enjoy.
Besides, fewer lots (more development) downtown means more people to support the existing businesses downtown. And you're also developing a more vibrant downtown that will be an attraction in and of itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeTarheel
The "faster to drive" is a very good indicator of whether people will use transit or not. I'm on board with that one, because my time is usually a factor in making a decision of whether to use MARTA or drive. Buses are often seen as a negative when factoring time, at least in Atlanta. It can easily take WAY longer than driving. Using rail is usually a wash for me.
Most people I imagine are not within reasonable walking distance of a MARTA station. And once you're in your car, it's tough to park and then get on another train if you don't absolutely have to. Toss in the fact that a lot of employers pay for parking and you get a situation where many people really have every incentive to drive. If you make driving easy, people will drive. If you make it hard, people will take transit.
Not really. If all of the downtown lots get built on, the price of parking will continue to increase until people have to start doing a real transportation cost-benefit analysis. King & Spalding and CNN are not just going to up and leave because the price of parking is expensive. Likewise, City Hall and Phillips Arena are not going anywhere. There are certain things that are largely fixed that people have to go to regardless. You just can't avoid work because you don't want to pay for parking or ride a train. And there will always be certain attractions downtown that people won't mind paying parking to enjoy.
Besides, fewer lots (more development) downtown means more people to support the existing businesses downtown. And you're also developing a more vibrant downtown that will be an attraction in and of itself.
Most people I imagine are not within reasonable walking distance of a MARTA station. And once you're in your car, it's tough to park and then get on another train if you don't absolutely have to. Toss in the fact that a lot of employers pay for parking and you get a situation where many people really have every incentive to drive. If you make driving easy, people will drive. If you make it hard, people will take transit.
I wasn't talking about King & Spalding, but about restaurants and retail and other services that can be found in other areas with ample parking. I know there are certain businesses that will always attract people no matter how stiff the price of parking, but the city has to be careful not to squeeze out those that do want parking for their businesses because it will make them more successful. It's a very fine line between consumers making the transition to transit versus making the transition to finding goods and services outside of downtown/Midtown.
I don't have an issue at all with ease of parking at a MARTA station. It's a at least 10-12 minute hike for me (which is doable) to get to my station or a 2 minute drive. I usually choose the drive. I'm not saying that my case is the same as everyone's, but MARTA is pretty easy for a large number if in-town and closer-in residents.
I wasn't talking about King & Spalding, but about restaurants and retail and other services that can be found in other areas with ample parking. I know there are certain businesses that will always attract people no matter how stiff the price of parking, but the city has to be careful not to squeeze out those that do want parking for their businesses because it will make them more successful. It's a very fine line between consumers making the transition to transit versus making the transition to finding goods and services outside of downtown/Midtown.
I hear what you're saying, but I don't think increased parking cost will have the impact you think it will. It's not like most people are going Downtown to go to Best Buy, the Post Office, the hairdresser, etc. High parking costs wlll make a difference in those instances. But a lot of the after hour attractions in the city center people will pay for. Most people are not going to skip on the 4-Star restaurant Downtown on Valentine's Day and head for the Golden Corral in Cobb County because they don't want to pay $10 for parking. Or skip cool events because they have to pay for parking. And the elimination of off-street parking doesn't mean you have to pay for parking. It just means you have to look for a parking spot on the street and parallel park.
If people pay to park and walk around Atlantic Station, then why wouldn't they pay for parking to be able to enjoy a real, thriving downtown?
I hear what you're saying, but I don't think increased parking cost will have the impact you think it will. It's not like most people are going Downtown to go to Best Buy, the Post Office, the hairdresser, etc. High parking costs wlll make a difference in those instances. But a lot of the after hour attractions in the city center people will pay for. Most people are not going to skip on the 4-Star restaurant Downtown on Valentine's Day and head for the Golden Corral in Cobb County because they don't want to pay $10 for parking. Or skip cool events because they have to pay for parking. And the elimination of off-street parking doesn't mean you have to pay for parking. It just means you have to look for a parking spot on the street and parallel park.
If people pay to park and walk around Atlantic Station, then why wouldn't they pay for parking to be able to enjoy a real, thriving downtown?
Surely you don't think that Golden Corral is all Cobb has to offer? And the choices aren't just Cobb or downtown, they include places like Buckhead where it's easy to find 4 star restaurants AND ample parking. Difficult or expensive parking can eventually lead to an exodus of the 4 star restaurants to places like Buckhead. Atlanta doesn't need that.
I'm not trying to disagree with you (and I'm even sure we disagree), but just presenting another perspective. It's just not as simple as raising parking prices and expecting people to either take transit or pay more. It can be a very dangerous game for downtown commerce, as many cities have found out over the years with businesses leaving for the burbs.
Part of the reason people walk is because of the headways. It's kinda tough to buy 80, $1.5 million streetcars, ya know. You could run three times as many buses with the same amount of money. And then streetcars are more limited in mobility than buses. So when you combine fewer vehicles (more expensive) and inferior mobility (can't maneuever around traffic) you get longer headways. Pretty simple.
Right, filling the streets with buses is the way to go. So now you have tons of buses running 3-5 minutes apart but can't go no where because they are clogging the streets with too much traffic. Since you are in Brooklyn, take a trip to the 1st and 2nd Aves and see how well that's working with the M15. That bus comes every 90 seconds! But that bus is always stuck in traffic. And aren't they building a rail line? Yeah they are since the buses are working so well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
Yeah, you keep saying that, but the Vegas example completely blows that thesis to smithereens.
The buses in Vegas are acting as more as commuter trains than a street car so no it doesn't blow anything anywhere. ATL we are talking streetcars which are completely different than a long range rail line.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
That's not true either. Do you think commuter buses do better than local buses in Washington, DC and NYC?
No, I'm sure they don't. That's because both have extensive HRT systems and commuter rail lines that move faster than buses stuck in traffic. Most local buses are bring people to the stations so more people are going to ride them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
And you think you're going to get better headways with a streetcar?
Probably about the same: maybe 10 to 15 minutes apart which is what the current #110 runs, between Midtown and Buckhead. But I've never been a fan of a streetcar up and down Peachtree. Here is where I would run articulated buses for the route with a 10-12 minute headway or better. Some local buses and some BRT/Limited stop buses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
That's not what I said. I just said get fancy, cool-looking buses that look like streetcars but are cheaper than streetcars. I mean, there's really no difference between the two except for the fact that the streetcar has a track.
Streetcars promote more development; streetcars aren't easily changed or removed which gives a greater sense of stability; steetcars or any rail transit is more preferred by "choice" riders, which will be the main target of the initial phase of the streetcar; streetcars are also more environmentally friendly than buses and last longer as to most rail cars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
That's just how Las Vegas does it. There's no reason you can't take the same vehicle and run it along a two mile route.
The bus can basically do everything a streetcar can. I don't see any real argument for the streetcar other than, "I want it! I really really want it! Choo choo! It's so cool! Please! Give it to me!!!!"
If the main focus is on promoting development, the city can simply subsidize development either directly or indirectly. No expensive streetcar required.
Vegas doesn't do it like that. They are funning the buses on long commuter routes not short 2-3 mile routes. Even the Duece bus is a fairly long route. They do have a monorail for the short 2-3 mile section of the Strip. Wow even Vegas understands that the buses you refer too aren't for short trips!
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
I don't think it was a mistake to rip them up. Streetcars gave way to a new technology just as horse-drawn streetcars gave way to electric streetcars.
And I'm pretty sure more streetcars have lines have been pulled up in Philly than bus lines completely terminated. The local 23 bus that runs through my neighborhood hasn't gone anywhere. The demand for transit doesn't simply evaporate because one mode of transit replaces another. It evaporates for reasons that have nothing do with the transit itself (i.e., riots, white flight, depopulation, population shifts, etc.).
Besides, the beauty of the bus is that the route can be changed when a water main breaks or construction along the route is otherwise necessary.
If it wasn't a mistake then why are so many cities rebuilding lines? The technology you refer to was the car and we see how well that has done for many cities.
And I'm sure when a situation comes up there is a way to make sure service isn't extremely interupted. Look at all the cities that have streetcars or LRT that runs in the street. Not just in the US but around the world!
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
If it's not about speed, then what's the point? And I'm comparing a regular local bus route to a streetcar route.
The two are completely different services. Most local buses criss cross everywhere so even if the service is fast it still takes a long time to get there. Most streetcars are direct from point A to B lines. This is not the case with the ATL streetcar but it's not about zipping people from Cenn Olympic Pk to MLK Memorial. It's so the areas can be developed, that people have a preferred alternative to walking to see attractions downtown, and about moving locals during peak times during the day and ultimately at night when the area booms with bars and other night life. All while the train is going at a speed to make sure you see everything incase you want to get off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
No, it's not. The streetcar runs down the middle of the street in Philadelphia and it gets stuck in traffic just like the bus. The only difference is that the city's not paying hundreds of millions of dollars more for people to be stuck in traffic.
I'm confused on how a streetcar running down the middle of the street, basically in its own ROW, would get stuck in traffic? Unless the person was driving on the tracks when they shouldn't be yeah but in most cases that's not happening.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
It takes 600 buses to run the same route the streetcar is gonna run?
No but you are saying that all the buses should have the technology and MARTA has about 500-600 buses so why not retro-fit all the buses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
That's not the same at all. But I mean, you could ask the same question about the streetcar. Would running a streetcar down Campbellton Road or Bankhead Highway make developers jump out of their seats to build condos?
More than just having a bus line running down it. Unfortunately, there haven't been any really plans to do that so until then we'll never know.
Bottom line is the streetcar is here!! Choo Choo!! Let the trains roll!!!
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.
