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.
What I'm saying is that even if you pull these large tracts out, and their population with them, Gwinnett STILL has a lower density than Cobb County. Even when we left the population but just removed the tracts from land count, you've shown that it took Gwinnett dropping 24 sq mi of land but keeping the same population for Gwinnett to even surpass Cobb by 2k people. But we have to remove the people that land added as well (~ 500/km^2 still adds up)
Plus, Cobb's core (Marietta, Cumberland, Smyrna) has a more urban development pattern, whereas Gwinnett is more suburban.
It is undeveloped land. There are no people on it. That was the point.
Is this the same rail line that Gwinnett county residents already voted down twice? I don't see how it can be "planned" if it is being consistently voted down.
i don't really see the point of building arbitrarily placed new downtown areas centered around a light rail stop. rail, especially light rail which is more conducive to shared right-of-way and walkability, should go to the areas that already have dense development— downtown norcross and downtown duluth in particular.
the I-85 corridor is more suited to heavy rail, not light rail. take a look at that presentation's numbers— they're expecting maximum capacity on 2/3 of that line!
This is something that has interested me for some time, so I decided to go into this in detail.
We all know county level totals don't explain the situations that people live in. We know Cobb is more built out, but still has some undeveloped land to the west and south. Gwinnett has a good bit of undeveloped land to the north and northeast and a bit to the south.
But what about the actual development within developed areas.
What I did was I got the population total and the population density (people per sq mi.) for every census tract in both Cobb and Gwinnett Counties. I calculated 3 numbers: the total number of tracts within a density range, how many people live in those tracts total (census tracts are different sizes!), and a running population total for all tracts of that density or great (3000+ would include those in brackets 5000+ and 10000+).
I created the following categories: 10,000 or greater, 5,000+ (5,000 up to 9,999), 4,000+ (4,000 up to 4,999), 3000+ (3,000 up to 3,999), 2,000+ (2,000 up to 2,999), 1,500+ (1,500 up to 1,999), and 0+ (0 up to 1,499)
The findings are somewhat as I expected, but I have to admit the differences were more exaggerated than I anticipated. My original argument was the counties are more alike, now I'm not so sure.
10,000+
Cobb: 0 census tracts
Gwinnett: 1 census tract; 5061 population in those tracts
Comment: Gwinnett is the only county to have a very dense suburban tract, but only 1 for half a square mile.
5,000+
Cobb: 5 census tracts; 24046 population; running total 24046
Gwinnett: 8 census tracts; 42180 population; running total 47241
Comment: Gwinnett had nearly double the amount of people living in a density of 5,000ppsm, than Cobb
4000+
Cobb: 6 census tracts; 37689 population; running total 61735
Gwinnett: 8 census tracts; 50391 population; running total 97632
Comment: Gwinnett is still beating out Cobb in the 4,000+ category, but Cobb is now 2/3 of Gwinnett's total
3000+
Cobb: 16 census tracts; 93167 population; running total 154902
Gwinnett: 15 census tracts; 94058 population; running total 191690
Comment: Cobb is equal with Gwinnett in the 3000+ category. It should be noted that Gwinnett had more people overall, so a greater percentage of cobb's residents fit into this category. Overall Gwinnett has more people living in Dense areas.
2000+
Cobb: 51 census tracts; 267159 population; running total 422061
Gwinnett: 31 census tracts; 199583 population; running total 391273
Comment: Here is where the bulk of single family homes start. Cobb beats Gwinnett with more people living in neighborhoods of 2000-2,999 ppsm.
1,500+
Cobb: 18 census tracts; 119070 population; running total 541131
Gwinnett: 31 census tracts; 216680 population; running total 607953
Comment: Here is another bulk of single family homes. These are a mixture of two types of census tracts. Larger lots with buffers (ie. creeks, rivers, steep grades) or areas with scattered undeveloped land needing infill development. A Huge part of Gwinnett's population is here and beats out Cobb County. This is to be expected largely, because has been said Gwinnett still has a periphery of land yet to be developed. This is the parts of Gwinnett that still need infill growth
0+
Cobb: 24 census tracts; 147552 population; running total 688683
Gwinnett: 19 census tracts; 138952 population; running total 746905
Comment: Here is where you have completely undeveloped land or areas with no residential area (ie. industrial parks, shopping malls, Large parks, rock quarries, Chattahoochee River Floodplain, airports, etc... filling up the census tracts). This was to expected in Gwinnett and to an extent in Cobb. What surprised me though was Cobb was about equal to Gwinnett in this regard.
Overall Comments:
Given that Gwinnett leads strongly in the 4000+ range, ties with Cobb for the 0+ and the 3000+ ranges, and that Cobb beats out Gwinnett in the 2000+ range....
For a suburban County. Gwinnett clearly is leading Cobb in Dense development, when it exists. It also leads the pack in census tracts that are partially developed and ready for infill. It is possible some single family home neighborhoods in Gwinnett are below avg density for single family neighborhoods in Cobb.
Cobb County is more uniform, than Gwinnett. More of its residents live in similar densities to one another.
In both counties the majority of land area is overwhelmingly the exact same as one another! Approx 55% in both counties of the population live in the 1,500 to 3,000 ppsm range, encompassing approx. 55% of the census tracts in both counties.
As for the denser areas we are realistically only talking about 13% of the population in Gwinnett and 8.8% of the population in Cobb. In short Gwinnett has more apartments, more townhomes, and denser ones when they exist. A few more units per acre in 80s-90s era zoning practices compared to 70-80s era zoning practices. It is really that simple. The counties are very similar to one another, but if you really nitpick the data. Gwinnett has more density where it is developed.
Most of Gwinnett's density seems to be west of Norcross and the southern part of Peachtree Corners and a larger longer tract just southeast of I-85, but northwest of US29 going from the Dekalb County line north into the lawrecenville area along Cruse Rd.
i don't really see the point of building arbitrarily placed new downtown areas centered around a light rail stop. rail, especially light rail which is more conducive to shared right-of-way and walkability, should go to the areas that already have dense development— downtown norcross and downtown duluth in particular.
That's a good point.
Though it should be noted that the proposed light rail line in that link is a bit more of a real estate redevelopment scheme than it really is for anything practical.
That light rail line was proposed for the specific purposes of redeveloping the declining Gwinnett Place Mall area into a high-density mixed-use development district and connecting Gwinnett County's Civic Center facilities (the performing arts center, Gwinnett Arena, the convention center) almost directly to the Atlanta Airport by way of Downtown.
The Gwinnett Village CID (community improvement district) also wants the light rail line through their area as a way of redeveloping the areas around the I-85 exits at Jimmy Carter Blvd and Indian Trail Rd and has proposed self-taxing itself to help the line get built and become operational.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryantm3
the I-85 corridor is more suited to heavy rail, not light rail. take a look at that presentation's numbers— they're expecting maximum capacity on 2/3 of that line!
This is another good point.
Much like the proposed US 41 light rail/BRT line in Cobb County, this proposed LRT line is likely being used as a 'bait-and-switch' way to attempt to sneak heavy rail into Gwinnett County.
They're using these LRT proposals as a way to attempt to quell the objections of a strong anti-transit contingent within Gwinnett that might not be so angry if light rail is proposed instead of heavy rail which would be seen as a direct connection to MARTA which the anti-transit contingent hates.
It's noteworthy that the UN also examines population statistics. According to their data, which is largely in line with national data, the Atlanta developed land area (sizable urban, suburban, commercial, as well as industrial development) that is contiguous had a population of 5 million at last estimate (2012 I believe). You can remove all those tiny rural counties from the equation and it makes little difference. All metropolitan areas contain rural areas. They are included if they fall into the commuter belt.
I noticed Atlanta had it's previous estimate reduced for 2012. It went from 5,475,000 to 5,454,000. A county must have been removed.
This also recalls the fears that the previous recession/real estate bust caused in Atlanta. I remember being stunned by the major slowdown Atlanta saw in 2001-2003. In one of those years, the Atlanta MSA added only 61,000 people and everyone thought it was the end of boomville. A few years later it was back at 120,000-140,000 a year and one year added 160,000. The business climate and educational facilities in Georgia cannot be held back unless you choose to do so.
Again I goofed... The previous 2012 estimate, which is still listed at Wikipedia (and was the original Census estimate that I read dozens of times last year), was 5,457,000. It still was reduced to 5,454,000 this year but it doesn't appear any counties were removed. They often revise previous estimates up or down. Many of the small, rural counties in the commuter belt are actually LOSING population.
i don't really see the point of building arbitrarily placed new downtown areas centered around a light rail stop. rail, especially light rail which is more conducive to shared right-of-way and walkability, should go to the areas that already have dense development— downtown norcross and downtown duluth in particular.
I don't know... And I'm going to use Cobb for illustration here... There are downtowns in terms of heavy commercial development like Cobb Pkwy, and then "historic" downtowns/villages usually surrounded by historic residential (e.g. Vinings Village, Market Village, Marietta Square). The historic areas tend to have boutiques and unique restaurants. I think it makes perfect sense to have the light rail (BRT actually) down Cobb Pkwy, which is an endless strip of commercial and needs something to really encourage it to go vertical. And then all the downtown villages need are loops/spurs from this main line. I'm talking short-term, of course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Born 2 Roll
Much like the proposed US 41 light rail/BRT line in Cobb County, this proposed LRT line is likely being used as a 'bait-and-switch' way to attempt to sneak heavy rail into Gwinnett County.
I know there's no bait-and-switch planned in Cobb County. I've talked with many leaders in Cobb, and they are being very practical about building only what's needed to remain competitive economically. There's no point in building heavy rail when even the light rail (or BRT run by natural gas) isn't likely to be fully utilized short-term. The only difference between light rail and heavy rail is how many riders it can carry. It has nothing to do with speed.
LRT is still on the table in Cobb and will be included in costs estimates for comparisons, but heavy rail isn't on the table nor would heavy rail make sense on Cobb Pkwy. The heavy rail is on the W&A line that runs through Vinings, Cumberland, Smyrna then Marietta downtowns, and is still heavily used by freight. It'd have to be triple-tracked in some areas to even consider it, and there isn't much room to expand the ROW anywhere in these densely populated cores.
The main feature is that Cobb Pkwy will have dedicated lanes for whichever they choose, and if it's BRT they can upgrade to LRT in the future just by laying down track.
Last edited by netdragon; 03-29-2014 at 12:16 AM..
Back to the OP and a comment made on another thread just this week. I don't put much stock into these estimates. Remember so many going on about how Atlanta had gained over 100k in the '00s because of these estimates and then the shock when the census came out and the city had only gained 4k in the decade?
I think some of these 2013 estimates are simply righting the wrongs that had taken place in the previous two estimates. Almost every place, whether city or county seemed to gain the exact same amount from 11 to 12 as it had gained from 10 to 11. Atlanta gained about 12k each of those years. Right. Only gained 4k in a decade that boomed for a good portion and then 24k in two years when recovering from a recession. Right.
Remember so many going on about how Atlanta had gained over 100k in the '00s because of these estimates and then the shock when the census came out and the city had only gained 4k in the decade?
That was because in the mid 2000s a lot of low-income people were displaced by the next wave of gentrification and tearing down projects, and then due to the economic downturn, nobody moved into the now largely vacant neighborhoods. That was further compounded by foreclosures, and tenants being evicted as a result by mortgage companies.
You'll notice that when the downturn ended, Atlanta started shooting back up again, since these neighborhoods on the fringes of gentrification (Summerhill, Mechanicsville, West End, etc) started to fill back up.
That was because in the mid 2000s a lot of low-income people were displaced by the next wave of gentrification and tearing down projects, and then due to the economic downturn, nobody moved into the now largely vacant neighborhoods. That was further compounded by foreclosures, and tenants being evicted as a result by mortgage companies.
You'll notice that when the downturn ended, Atlanta started shooting back up again, since these neighborhoods on the fringes of gentrification (Summerhill, Mechanicsville, West End, etc) started to fill back up.
I understand that, you understand that. But the fine folks at the Census Bureau who get paid to figure these things out missed it by a mile. That's my point.
I understand that, you understand that. But the fine folks at the Census Bureau who get paid to figure these things out missed it by a mile. That's my point.
I don't think they were that far off. Neighborhoods that are now nearly fully like Pittsburgh, Rockdale, a good chunk of Mechanicsville and Peoplestown, Oakdale City were almost empty. I mean, just from the ones I listed, you're talking probably over 20,000 people. Now they are all pretty much full. But in 2009/2010, they had more empty houses than occupied. They can't count them, even if they know that being onoccupied is temporary.
I imagine many squatters weren't playing ball either and therefore didn't get counted, since many of them are generally un-trusting of officials, especially when they are illegally in a home. I can imagine census officials knocking repeatedly and just being ignored in some cases.
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.
