Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-15-2013, 03:07 PM
 
Location: Kirkwood
23,726 posts, read 24,720,252 times
Reputation: 5702

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by cwkimbro View Post
I would be careful what cards you play.

I'm not arguing against Emory/CDC, but the answer to this question is a HUGE YES.

Perimeter Center has far more jobs, is better connected, Fortune 500 company headquarters, much more office space, high density residential, and has much more growth potential.

Despite being built entirely after the invention of the car, it isn't a little suburban area like you would otherwise want to believe. It is a whole new business district.

To be frank, I'm actually surprised someone brought this up.
And that is why I ask the question, to play devil's advocate. I too believe that Perimeter Center has more jobs and more important to the state's economy, but could the governor's push for 285/400 improvement be that it directly impacts a lot of majority republican voting districts?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-15-2013, 03:52 PM
 
Location: Atlanta
7,574 posts, read 10,700,859 times
Reputation: 6512
Quote:
Originally Posted by cqholt View Post
And that is why I ask the question, to play devil's advocate. I too believe that Perimeter Center has more jobs and more important to the state's economy, but could the governor's push for 285/400 improvement be that it directly impacts a lot of majority republican voting districts?
I wouldn't be surprised if that played a role, but still... to answer the question you posed.... it is -far- more important to the region and it's growth if put side by side.

Also, besides playing the whole republican - democrat card... (my view is actually many suburban republicans continually shoot themselves in the foot by aligning themselves with rural republicans that would rather 1) decrease taxes at all costs or 2) promote more funding for rural roads at the cost of the Atlanta region as a whole. Most I talk to don't quite understand that they have different needs and desires and push for them at our cost.)

If you map where the educated talent in Atlanta lives, which businesses look at when they choose to locate here, it explains why new companies are increasingly interested in locating further north... and in part why downtown office rents are so low.

That alone is the reason why it is important at promoting the economic development of high paying jobs.

Now with that said... there is another fallacy other posters are falling into. That junction alone does not represent an entire fix for that corridor. Rather, it is one bottleneck of many. The actual cost of us increasing working capacity in Perimeter Center as a whole is much more as we also have to continue more development of: on/off ramps, arterial roads, outlying arterial roads (such a poor arterial road system getting to that area!), capacity increases along 285 and 400 in one.

Now it isn't that transit has an infinite capacity, but once we go through the large up front cost of building it at first it has large capacity potential to build into the future at low costs. Freeways are the opposite... the larger the need to increase capacity, the more it cost to keep increasing it. This is why freeways are always more attractive to build on the front end.

Nonetheless, that junction was designed to be far smaller. A redesign can also help more cars recirculate into the Perimeter Center area w/o getting onto multiple freeways, so it is a major win for the freeways and local roads alike and see it as an important starting point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-15-2013, 03:59 PM
 
Location: Kirkwood
23,726 posts, read 24,720,252 times
Reputation: 5702
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwkimbro View Post
I wouldn't be surprised if that played a role, but still... to answer the question you posed.... it is -far- more important to the region and it's growth if put side by side.

Also, besides playing the whole republican - democrat card... (my view is actually many suburban republicans continually shoot themselves in the foot by aligning themselves with rural republicans that would rather 1) decrease taxes at all costs or 2) promote more funding for rural roads at the cost of the Atlanta region as a whole. Most I talk to don't quite understand that they have different needs and desires and push for them at our cost.)

If you map where the educated talent in Atlanta lives, which businesses look at when they choose to locate here, it explains why new companies are increasingly interested in locating further north... and in part why downtown office rents are so low.

That alone is the reason why it is important at promoting the economic development of high paying jobs.

Now with that said... there is another fallacy other posters are falling into. That junction alone does not represent an entire fix for that corridor. Rather, it is one bottleneck of many. The actual cost of us increasing working capacity in Perimeter Center as a whole is much more as we also have to continue more development of: on/off ramps, arterial roads, outlying arterial roads (such a poor arterial road system getting to that area!), capacity increases along 285 and 400 in one.

Now it isn't that transit has an infinite capacity, but once we go through the large up front cost of building it at first it has large capacity potential to build into the future at low costs. Freeways are the opposite... the larger the need to increase capacity, the more it cost to keep increasing it. This is why freeways are always more attractive to build on the front end.

Nonetheless, that junction was designed to be far smaller. A redesign can also help more cars recirculate into the Perimeter Center area w/o getting onto multiple freeways, so it is a major win for the freeways and local roads alike and see it as an important starting point.
Take the hundreds of millions to be spent on 285/400 and put it towards extending the Red Line into North Fulton.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-15-2013, 04:11 PM
 
Location: Atlanta
7,574 posts, read 10,700,859 times
Reputation: 6512
Quote:
Originally Posted by cqholt View Post
Take the hundreds of millions to be spent on 285/400 and put it towards extending the Red Line into North Fulton.
but this is the problem with the all freeway or all transit approach.

both need to be done in the long-run and at this moment for short-term economic investment the junction alone is far cheaper, but presents a big capacity upgrade.

The all transit approach in the near-term would be best spent starting commuter rail on a -large- scale and beefing up transit circulators around Perimeter Center, so people in all parts of town can later see the value of an alternative to getting to the Perimeter Center area by transit.

The reasoning is the red line extension is far more expensive, but only beefs up commuter capacity from one direction. The junction helps it from 4 and would still be needed, even if we increased transit in one direction.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-15-2013, 04:20 PM
 
Location: Decatur, GA
7,345 posts, read 6,479,699 times
Reputation: 5144
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtcorndog View Post
Where did you come up with the 30 seconds time saving? That seems quite low and unrealistic given how much that entire intersection backs up traffic. I would argue that it is at least 3-5 times that (as a conservative estimate).
Because there's only so many ways you can change an intersection without rebuilding a significant portion of the highway on either side of the interchange. Unless you were also adding a significant number of lanes and capacity to the highway itself, the interchange will just move the bottleneck. Will it improve things? Yes. But it's not the end-all be-all solution you seem to think it is. As has been pointed out, extending high capacity transit along GA-400 by extending the Red Line, you could pull a significant number of vehicles off the road. Don't forget, the 200,000 people/cars per day figure is spread across the entire day. I'd imagine the number of people going through the intersection at rush hour to be closer to 100,000, maybe. Even that would be spread across three or so hours (6-7 7-8, 8-9; 4-5, 5-6, 6-7). So maybe 33,000 people per hour use the intersection at peak times.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cwkimbro View Post
but this is the problem with the all freeway or all transit approach.

both need to be done in the long-run and at this moment for short-term economic investment the junction alone is far cheaper, but presents a big capacity upgrade.

The all transit approach in the near-term would be best spent starting commuter rail on a -large- scale and beefing up transit circulators around Perimeter Center, so people in all parts of town can later see the value of an alternative to getting to the Perimeter Center area by transit.

The reasoning is the red line extension is far more expensive, but only beefs up commuter capacity from one direction. The junction helps it from 4 and would still be needed, even if we increased transit in one direction.
While I agree that an all-or-nothing approach for both uses is not the best idea, it's not quite as simple as you lay it out either. For instance, the red line extension wouldn't just improve capacity from one direction. At worst, it would only improve capacity from two directions (in, then out), but more likely, it would reduce congestion on I-285 by the people going from 285 onto 400, having to compete with less cars for space on 400.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-15-2013, 04:33 PM
 
Location: Atlanta
7,574 posts, read 10,700,859 times
Reputation: 6512
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattCW View Post
Because there's only so many ways you can change an intersection without rebuilding a significant portion of the highway on either side of the interchange. Unless you were also adding a significant number of lanes and capacity to the highway itself, the interchange will just move the bottleneck. Will it improve things? Yes. But it's not the end-all be-all solution you seem to think it is. As has been pointed out, extending high capacity transit along GA-400 by extending the Red Line, you could pull a significant number of vehicles off the road. Don't forget, the 200,000 people/cars per day figure is spread across the entire day. I'd imagine the number of people going through the intersection at rush hour to be closer to 100,000, maybe. Even that would be spread across three or so hours (6-7 7-8, 8-9; 4-5, 5-6, 6-7). So maybe 33,000 people per hour use the intersection at peak times.


While I agree that an all-or-nothing approach for both uses is not the best idea, it's not quite as simple as you lay it out either. For instance, the red line extension wouldn't just improve capacity from one direction. At worst, it would only improve capacity from two directions (in, then out), but more likely, it would reduce congestion on I-285 by the people going from 285 onto 400, having to compete with less cars for space on 400.

It would be primarily a change from one direction. Commuters going north (morning) already have a transit option presently.

As for as offering more transit destinations for commuters further north... we all know that would have to be developed over time as the build of areas further north will not be within walking distance to most businesses, yet. Perimeter Center is just now at he pivot point where they are developing that aspect of their infrastructure. Not that I'm against this, it just influences near-term priorities vs. long-term.

I also further put more priority on the junction, because the expanded junction is also suppose to include circulation/distributor ramps/lanes (albeit, yet to be designed). This will help traffic on local arteries and help prevent bottleneck on the through-freeway lanes.

Lets also not forget it will help people with commutes going to and from Cumberland and Peachtree Corners as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2013, 07:42 AM
 
Location: Kirkwood
23,726 posts, read 24,720,252 times
Reputation: 5702
Adding road capacity is not the long-term answer. Its short term thinking, which all politicians are concerned about.
Real traffic solution: Extend Red Line, no commuter rail can go up that corridor. Build Commuter Rail up Cobb County to Cherokee County and Gwinnett County, via Norcorss, Duluth, and Buford. Build transit along the Top-end Perimeter from transfer stations at Cumberland and Doraville. That way commuters can travel the top-end using transit. Of course this would cost more than the tax would bring in, but its the ultimate build out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2013, 07:49 AM
 
2,406 posts, read 3,337,785 times
Reputation: 907
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattCW View Post
Because there's only so many ways you can change an intersection without rebuilding a significant portion of the highway on either side of the interchange. Unless you were also adding a significant number of lanes and capacity to the highway itself, the interchange will just move the bottleneck. Will it improve things? Yes. But it's not the end-all be-all solution you seem to think it is. As has been pointed out, extending high capacity transit along GA-400 by extending the Red Line, you could pull a significant number of vehicles off the road. Don't forget, the 200,000 people/cars per day figure is spread across the entire day. I'd imagine the number of people going through the intersection at rush hour to be closer to 100,000, maybe. Even that would be spread across three or so hours (6-7 7-8, 8-9; 4-5, 5-6, 6-7). So maybe 33,000 people per hour use the intersection at peak times.
If you are going to argue "time savings" as the key decision metric, you need to use it for both projects and can't just try to cherry pick numbers from one and ignore the other.

Do you really think that a light rail line from Lindbergh to CDC is really going to save anyone time versus other, existing methods of transportation? While there is some periodic traffic in that area, it isn't constant and only occurs in rush periods as well. Additionally, when you factor in the transfer at Lindbergh plus whatever other MARTA ride is required, where does any sort of time savings come from?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2013, 08:01 AM
 
Location: Kirkwood
23,726 posts, read 24,720,252 times
Reputation: 5702
Quote:
Do you really think that a light rail line from Lindbergh to CDC is really going to save anyone time versus other, existing methods of transportation? While there is some periodic traffic in that area, it isn't constant and only occurs in rush periods as well. Additionally, when you factor in the transfer at Lindbergh plus whatever other MARTA ride is required, where does any sort of time savings come from?
Transferring is not that hard and part of using transit. There cannot be door-to-door service everywhere. User would have to wait at most 5 minutes during peak hours.
Buses get caught in traffic and demand riders have a stigma about buses. The LRT would be in exclusive lanes, in mixed traffic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2013, 08:05 AM
 
2,406 posts, read 3,337,785 times
Reputation: 907
Quote:
Originally Posted by cqholt View Post
Transferring is not that hard and part of using transit. There cannot be door-to-door service everywhere. User would have to wait at most 5 minutes during peak hours.
Buses get caught in traffic and demand riders have a stigma about buses. The LRT would be in exclusive lanes, in mixed traffic.
Again, you miss this point.

The LRT provides no time savings over driving when you factor in the transfer and other transit time. Where in Atlanta would it be faster to ride MARTA to CDC (with this light rail) than to drive? Heck, you could live right next to a MARTA station anywhere in Atlanta and get to the CDC faster by driving when you figure in both transit trips and the transfer.

Using "time savings" as justification for the LRT project is a losing argument.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top