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 05-08-2015, 07:14 PM
 
Location: Kirkwood
22,787 posts, read 16,795,176 times
Reputation: 5133

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by bu2 View Post
Its an interesting article. I do think I-85 or near Buford Hwy are the logical routes.
Placing a transit line close to a congested freeway is not ideal. The major roads with interchanges on the freeway have congestion and can be half the battle of traffic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-08-2015, 11:02 PM
 
Location: ATL -> HOU -> DAL
4,218 posts, read 3,355,787 times
Reputation: 3260
Quote:
Originally Posted by cqholt View Post
Placing a transit line close to a congested freeway is not ideal. The major roads with interchanges on the freeway have congestion and can be half the battle of traffic.
It may not be ideal, but like the extension along 400, it's probably the only option. Where else would it go? You take it too far off 85 and you're gonna miss a lot of the population. And there are a lot of jobs up and down 85 as well. If the line goes between PIB and Buford, I'm much better off just driving. And it gets hard for a lot of people along 316 over into Lawrenceville and beyond. Put it near Lawrenceville Hwy and it's too hard for people in Peachtree Corners, Norcross, Duluth, Suwanee and beyond.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2015, 11:09 PM
 
10,175 posts, read 7,171,993 times
Reputation: 3137
I think commuter rail is the best option for for Gwinnett. Many of the original towns were built along the rail line anyways.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2015, 11:27 PM
 
Location: Atlanta
4,892 posts, read 3,222,477 times
Reputation: 4132
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsvh View Post
I think commuter rail is the best option for for Gwinnett. Many of the original towns were built along the rail line anyways.
In a perfect world with unlimited funding I would love to see the Gold Line out to Sugarloaf/Gwinnett Arena, with through service to both the City and a Top End line to Perimeter.

Commuter rail should go out to Gainesville, with stations in all of the old traditional railroad towns. The Brain Train to Athens would hit more of Central Gwinnett. Nice fantasy...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2015, 11:50 PM
 
28,604 posts, read 25,848,356 times
Reputation: 17166
Quote:
Originally Posted by bu2 View Post
And Kyle Wingfield echos some of what I think about Atlanta's system as well:

Plane crash in Atlanta shows fragility of region’s highway network | Kyle Wingfield

He has comparative maps of Denver, Dallas and Houston.
Good article, but metro Atlanta isn't getting another loop, a northern arc, or any other major highway to help alleviate traffic along the major interstates.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2015, 11:55 PM
 
Location: Atlanta
4,892 posts, read 3,222,477 times
Reputation: 4132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutiny77 View Post
Good article, but metro Atlanta isn't getting another loop, a northern arc, or any other major highway to help alleviate traffic along the major interstates.
Exactly. We will not be seeing any new freeways here in our lifetimes, there is simply not the stomach for it and any proposal would end up in endless litigation.

And we are not a basically treeless, flat-as-a-pancake region. If we were, then yeah - more freeways may be better. The huge majority here have no desire to destroy our beauty to 'force' a grid upon the Metro. It's not happening.

Last edited by JMatl; 05-09-2015 at 12:03 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2015, 08:33 AM
 
5,853 posts, read 5,193,393 times
Reputation: 3921
Quote:
Could MARTA serve Gwinnett County’s sprawl?
Not only could MARTA serve Gwinnett County's sprawl....MARTA can also transform much of Gwinnett County's sprawl into high revenue-generating TOD (Transit-Oriented Development) centered on high-capacity transit lines.

The expansion of a high-capacity rail transit line into Gwinnett County would undoubtedly change development patterns in the areas adjacent to the line, particularly around stations that were developed as large-scale high-density mixed-use Transit-Oriented Developments.



Quote:
Originally Posted by cqholt View Post
I found the density, without a downtown business district shocking.
Considering Gwinnett County's ultra developer-friendly culture where it seems that real estate developers have been on a 30-year-plus quest to develop every square inch of the county, I did not find Gwinnett's population density figure of 1,871 people per square mile the least bit shocking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sedimenjerry View Post
Especially since eastern Gwinnett isn't dense at all.

Look, Gwinnett might not have dense nodes, but it absolutely has a main route. I 85. That is THE main route and is the perfect spot for a rail line. Or at least make it easy to access for 85 commuters. I really like that you can get off 400 and be right there at the North Springs station. You aren't gonna convert Gwinnettians into urbanites walking to stations but many will be thrilled to drive to the stations on side streets that either aren't too bad, or will just remain terrible, all while avoiding a backed up freeway.
These are some excellent points.

Park & Ride service (where commuters drive to catch a train or bus at the nearest high-capacity transit station or park & ride lot instead of adding traffic to an overcrowded (gridlocked) highway) will be a major generator of ridership for any future high-capacity transit expansion in outlying counties like Gwinnett.

Though, if rail transit stations are built as large-scale high-density mixed-use Transit-Oriented Developments, we can also at least generate (if not convert) many Gwinnett County residents into urbanized suburbanites walking to stations from homes, offices, shops and restaurants located immediately nearby high-capacity transit lines.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2015, 09:11 AM
 
1,117 posts, read 1,001,029 times
Reputation: 500
But would Gwinnett support anything with MARTA attached to it? IIRC, the county voted against MARTA operating there?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2015, 11:04 AM
 
5,853 posts, read 5,193,393 times
Reputation: 3921
Quote:
Originally Posted by bu2 View Post
Its an interesting article. I do think I-85 or near Buford Hwy are the logical routes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sedimenjerry View Post
Buford Hwy is right near the railroad. Commuter rail possibly?
The I-85 corridor high-capacity rail alignment could be more of a local line while the Buford Highway corridor rail transit alignment could be a little bit more of an express line, though both alignments should offer both local and express high-capacity rail transit service.

The PIB/Buford Highway/NS/Southern Railroad alignment could offer more express service than local service while the I-85 corridor alignment could offer more local than express service.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sedimenjerry View Post
US 78 could use something but I don't know if a dedicated line is worth the cost
Implementing some type of high-capacity transit service along US 78 is an excellent idea.

In the past I have seen plans to implement BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) along the US 78 corridor....Which the US 78 corridor should have BRT service at a minimum.

High-capacity rail transit service could also be implemented along the US 78 corridor.

In either case, whether BRT or HRT is implemented along US 78, high-capacity transit service could be implemented and operated in conjunction with high-frequency local bus/shuttle service between stations.

If funded correctly, cost should not really be an issue as the cost of any implementation of high-capacity transit along a busy commercial corridor can be paid for primarily with revenue-generating transit-oriented real estate development-fueled large-scale P3's (Public-Private Partnerships) with area businesses and commercial property owners and Value Capture taxing.

(...Value Capture taxing is where increased property tax revenues are collected from the increased property values that are generated from the implementation of a high-capacity transit line through an area....For example, in Denver, there were many properties whose values increased by as much as seven-fold when Light Rail Transit lines were run through those areas (...there was an example given of one property whose taxes went from $50,000/year to $350,000/year after an LRT line was built through the area)....Revenues to pay for the LRT lines were collected from the increased property taxes that were generated from the dramatically increased property values that the LRT lines created.)

We would basically use the increased revenues (real estate profits and property tax revenues) that would come from the redevelopment of existing property into high-density Transit-Oriented Development along high-capacity transit lines to pay for high-capacity transit lines.

Additional transit-funding revenues can be collected from the aggressive sales of private sponsorships both large and small as well as from a distance-based fare structure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cqholt View Post
Placing a transit line close to a congested freeway is not ideal. The major roads with interchanges on the freeway have congestion and can be half the battle of traffic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sedimenjerry View Post
It may not be ideal, but like the extension along 400, it's probably the only option. Where else would it go? You take it too far off 85 and you're gonna miss a lot of the population. And there are a lot of jobs up and down 85 as well. If the line goes between PIB and Buford, I'm much better off just driving. And it gets hard for a lot of people along 316 over into Lawrenceville and beyond. Put it near Lawrenceville Hwy and it's too hard for people in Peachtree Corners, Norcross, Duluth, Suwanee and beyond.
sedimenjerry makes an excellent point that the I-85 corridor is a good place for a high-capacity passenger rail transit line through Gwinnett County because the I-85 corridor is the most heavily developed corridor in Gwinnett County, particularly from a commercial development standpoint.

The Gwinnett Village area, Gwinnett Place Mall, Sugarloaf Mills Mall, the Gwinnett Center complex and the Mall of Georgia are all located along the I-85 corridor....Not to mention that I-85 is the busiest highway in a fast-growing county of about 900,000 people.

Though with Gwinnett County's population expected to reach the 1 million-inhabitant mark (and with the population of the Atlanta metro region expected to grow into the 8-10 million range) in the not-too-distant future, both the Peachtree Industrial Blvd/Buford Highway (NS/Southern Railroad) and US 29 Lawrenceville Highway corridors both need high-capacity transit service as well.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jsvh View Post
I think commuter rail is the best option for for Gwinnett. Many of the original towns were built along the rail line anyways.
Commuter rail could maybe be a good option for Gwinnett County as demo lines that could operate while regional HRT lines were being built.

Though with Gwinnett County already having a population of almost 900,000 people and with the county slated to eclipse the 1 million-inhabitant mark in the not-too-distant future, Gwinnett County needs more than just commuter rail service moving forward over the long-term.

A fast-growing, fast-urbanizing, heavily-populated county like Gwinnett needs both commuter rail and regional Heavy Rail Transit service for both logistical and economic development purposes.

In a county of almost 1 million people with a heavily congested road network like Gwinnett, people need high-frequency grade-separated high-capacity passenger rail transit options to move them at a high rate of speed when traffic is gridlocked on major arterials and highways.

A heavily-populated county like Gwinnett also needs high-frequency grade-separated high-capacity passenger rail transit options for the robust redevelopment opportunities that they bring, particularly to declining and blighted areas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2015, 11:28 AM
 
5,853 posts, read 5,193,393 times
Reputation: 3921
Quote:
Originally Posted by golden eagles fan View Post
But would Gwinnett support anything with MARTA attached to it? IIRC, the county voted against MARTA operating there?
That is an excellent question.

Gwinnett County's current population would most likely support high-capacity transit service (MARTA or otherwise) being expanded into the county.

Though, the current electorate (which does not match the county's increasingly diverse population), which continues to be dominated by staunchly anti-transit and anti-tax interest likely would not support MARTA expansion into the county at this time, particularly if said expansion was funded with sales taxes collected through a voter referendum.

If high-capacity transit expansion into the county was to be done with a voter referendum for the collection of sales taxes to fund MARTA expansion into Gwinnett, transit supporters would likely have to wait until at least 2020 or later to ensure that a majority of the electorate would support it.

Though, if high-capacity transit expansion into the county was to be funded through means that don't require a voter referendum (like with large-scale Public-Private Partnerships, Value Capture, Tax Increment Financing, revenues from transit-oriented real estate development along transit lines, a distance-based fare structure, aggressive sales of private sponsorships, etc), transit supporters could maybe potentially move on implementing high-capacity transit through Gwinnett County sooner.

Though Georgia political leaders are so far behind on even being aware of these much more effective and much more lucrative alternative/creative transit-funding methods that it would likely still take quite a while just to make them aware that transit can actually be funded without countywide sales taxes that need the approval of voters in each county that transit is proposed to expand into.
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

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - 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 - Top