What projects should Fulton County prioritize in TSPLOST? (Atlanta, Dallas: how much, professionals)

[Gulch]

Originally Posted by primaltech

Roswell, Johns Creek mayors question transit plan

What a friggin' mess.

These idiots all think that driverless vehicles will save their rear ends in the next decade.

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by primaltech

Roswell, Johns Creek mayors question transit plan

What a friggin' mess.

To go back to the State Sen Albers thread this is why N. Fulton hasn't seen rail expansion. The local leadership is fighting and blocking at every move to expand high quality transit into N Fulton.

After months of study and dozens of public meetings, a plan to expand transit in Fulton County looked last week like it had won the support of a diverse group of mayors and county leaders.
But at least two north Fulton mayors broke ranks, saying in separate letters that they didn’t think enough work had been done to prove that any transit expansion would improve traffic in their areas.

Mayor Mike Bodker in Johns Creek has asked questions about the necessity for transit expansion and the study’s methods throughout the process. Mayor Lori Henry in Roswell is newly elected, and participated in her first meeting of mayors and county commissioners last month.

Bodker said he thought the proposed bus rapid transit lines would be of limited use in getting cars off the road, and were intended more to spur more growth in areas where the lines would go. Johns Creek, Roswell and Alpharetta don’t want additional density, Bodker said. (Bodker said Alpharetta Mayor David Belle Isle had also expressed concerns about the proposal; Belle Isle did not return phone calls seeking comment.)

“What’s really driving this is economic development,” Bodker said of the transit proposal. “I think we need to have a serious discussion of how to solve our traffic woes. We need to build a business case, whether it’s for roads or transit. All of it needs to be justified.”

Liz Hausmann, a Republican Fulton County commissioner who represents parts of north Fulton and has been a proponent of bus rapid transit, rejected the idea that the transit proposal was primarily for economic development in north Fulton — in the south part of the county, it is, she said — and said she thinks county leaders need to present viable options to residents that will help with traffic relief.

Both mayors’ letters stated reservations about a transit proposal that would raise an estimated $4.9 billion by taxing residents an additional half penny for 40 years.

Under that plan, bus rapid transit lines would be built on Ga. 400, Holcomb Bridge Road, U.S. 29 and South Fulton Parkway. Bodker and Belle Isle have been vocal about their concerns with the process, and Bodker said Monday that he did not think the county’s transit study had been “intellectually honest.” He said the density in north Fulton would not support bus rapid transit lines

Bodker said the county’s study did not take into consideration whether people would actually use any expanded transit.

In his letter, Bodker said he was concerned that the county could be faced with having made a costly mistake that could not be easily corrected if it turns out transit is the wrong strategy. Henry, in Roswell, said in her letter that she does not believe bus rapid transit is “in the best interest” of Roswell.

“Locating bus rapid transit stations in Roswell will create additional traffic congestion on Roswell roads,” she wrote. “Also, the additional right-of-way needed for bus rapid transit on Holcomb Bridge is non-existent, and sustainable impacts and costs to property and business along Holcomb Bridge are unknown.”

She also wrote that other metro Atlanta counties should be required to pay for any expansion. Through a spokesperson, Henry said Monday that she had no additional comment on her letter.

State Sen. John Albers, R-Roswell, was copied on Henry’s letter and on Hausmann’s. Albers, like the two mayors, said he would like to see more discussion of autonomous vehicles, which he said could change the calculus for public transportation. Hausmann, in her letter, said she did not know how long it would take before those options would be viable.

Albers said he was excited about the ongoing conversation.

“There’s a lot of passion,” he said. “Everybody wants to find the right solution.”

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by primaltech

Roswell, Johns Creek mayors question transit plan

What a friggin' mess.

What the *******s is all this mess!?

Bodker said he thought the proposed bus rapid transit lines would be of limited use in getting cars off the road, and were intended more to spur more growth in areas where the lines would go.

This is why I try so hard to correct the idea that 'transit will solve traffic'. That justification leads to a fundamental misunderstanding of what transit is. The roads will always be congested. Transit is there to add capacity and alternatives to those congested roads. NOT to empty them.

Johns Creek, Roswell and Alpharetta don’t want additional density, Bodker said.

We too freaking bad. You're core-metro cities in a rapidly growing, top-10 U.S. metro! You can't just keep pretending that you're small-town bumpkins and expect things to get any better. After all, not adding density won't fix your traffic problem either.

Bodker said the county’s study did not take into consideration whether people would actually use any expanded transit.

This is factually incorrect. In both the Round 2 North and South Fulton Public Meeting Presentations, there are slides dedicated to showing "Concentration of Likely Riders".

“Locating bus rapid transit stations in Roswell will create additional traffic congestion on Roswell roads,” she wrote.

If it gets too much then there's this handy thing called a freaking bus rapid transit line that runs smack-parallel to the area that people can use to, I don't know, NOT BE IN TRAFFIC.

“Also, the additional right-of-way needed for bus rapid transit on Holcomb Bridge is non-existent,

The irony here is that removing a car lane would actually reduce traffic in the long run.

and sustainable impacts and costs to property and business along Holcomb Bridge are unknown.”

Actually, we do have a decent idea. It's anywhere from a 0% to a 170% increase depending on type of property, type of transit, etc.


Once more North Fulton seems hell-bent on screwing it all up for everyone.

[Gulch]

Originally Posted by fourthwarden

Once more North Fulton seems hell-bent on screwing it all up for everyone.

Hence why I'll likely never move north of the North Springs MARTA station if I ever do decamp for the suburbs.

[cqholt]

Johns Creek, Roswell and Alpharetta don’t want additional density, Bodker said.

This idea is not true. If Alpharetta didn't want increased density, why did it permit Avalon?

[primaltech]

Originally Posted by Gulch

Hence why I'll likely never move north of the North Springs MARTA station if I ever do decamp for the suburbs.

It's also boring and isolated up there. I lived in both Alpharetta and Sandy Springs for 2 years each: give me Sandy Springs any day.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by fourthwarden

What the *******s is all this mess!?



This is why I try so hard to correct the idea that 'transit will solve traffic'. That justification leads to a fundamental misunderstanding of what transit is. The roads will always be congested. Transit is there to add capacity and alternatives to those congested roads. NOT to empty them.



We too freaking bad. You're core-metro cities in a rapidly growing, top-10 U.S. metro! You can't just keep pretending that you're small-town bumpkins and expect things to get any better. After all, not adding density won't fix your traffic problem either.



This is factually incorrect. In both the Round 2 North and South Fulton Public Meeting Presentations, there are slides dedicated to showing "Concentration of Likely Riders".



If it gets too much then there's this handy thing called a freaking bus rapid transit line that runs smack-parallel to the area that people can use to, I don't know, NOT BE IN TRAFFIC.



The irony here is that removing a car lane would actually reduce traffic in the long run.



Actually, we do have a decent idea. It's anywhere from a 0% to a 170% increase depending on type of property, type of transit, etc.


Once more North Fulton seems hell-bent on screwing it all up for everyone.

But as I posted on the other thread, adding rail isn't even adding to transit ridership!

So whatever he may believe today, Wendell Cox has almost certainly done more to make rail transit a reality than virtually anyone reading this.
He soon soured on rail transit, however, because he didn’t believe that it actually worked. “What we have seen in the United States is right from the start rail transit didn’t add anything at all to transit [ridership] in the United States. It didn’t reduce automobile use at all…By the late 1980s, after having left the commission about four years before I had come to the view that it wasn’t something we ought to be doing…I became very critical of spending billions of dollars to achieve less than we promised we would achieve.”
Indeed, the LA Times reported a while back that despite billions in rail transit investments in LA, overall transit ridership had fallen. And it is falling as we speak. There are many possible explanations for these declines. Bus ridership is falling in many markets, and LA is still very heavily skewed towards buses. Uber and Lyft are eating into market share. Wendell Cox Has Probably Done More for Transit Than You Have

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by bu2

But as I posted on the other thread, adding rail isn't even adding to transit ridership!

So whatever he may believe today, Wendell Cox has almost certainly done more to make rail transit a reality than virtually anyone reading this.
He soon soured on rail transit, however, because he didn’t believe that it actually worked. “What we have seen in the United States is right from the start rail transit didn’t add anything at all to transit [ridership] in the United States. It didn’t reduce automobile use at all…By the late 1980s, after having left the commission about four years before I had come to the view that it wasn’t something we ought to be doing…I became very critical of spending billions of dollars to achieve less than we promised we would achieve.”
Indeed, the LA Times reported a while back that despite billions in rail transit investments in LA, overall transit ridership had fallen. And it is falling as we speak. There are many possible explanations for these declines. Bus ridership is falling in many markets, and LA is still very heavily skewed towards buses. Uber and Lyft are eating into market share. Wendell Cox Has Probably Done More for Transit Than You Have

You continue to conveniently miss that:

In other cities, rail numbers grow while bus numbers fall. That’s true in Los Angeles, where thickening traffic and construction hold-ups are slowing buses and perhaps discouraging passengers. In Chicago, CTA bus ridership dropped by nearly 20 percent between 2008 and 2016, “even as rail ridership has increased by roughly the same amount,” writes the urban policy analyst Daniel Kay Hertz; service cuts likely bear a good deal of blame. (There may be some issues with the ridership data itself, too.)

In New York, bus ridership has waned for years; chalk it up there to too-slow and too-unreliable service. And yes, subway usage also fell 0.3 percent last year, as the New York Times reported this week—but weekday ridership is at an all-time high, while weekend ridership has dropped about 3 percent. There is likely a service connection there, too: Weekends are when subways are more often out of service due to repairs.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by fourthwarden

You continue to conveniently miss that:

I didn't miss that. Rail numbers are increasing, but combined bus and rail are decreasing. Almost every place that is the case. Virtually everywhere in the country transit ridership is falling. Los Angeles, with its massive investment in rail is one of the worst cases of ridership drop. Dallas is also dropping despite mass investment in commuter rail. Seattle is one of the few exceptions of places that have invested heavily where it is increasing. Although they haven't limited themselves to rail investment.

This article argues that commuter buses provide better service, not just cheaper service, than rail, to the suburbs.
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/new...f-12546347.php

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by bu2

I didn't miss that. Rail numbers are increasing, but combined bus and rail are decreasing. Almost every place that is the case. Virtually everywhere in the country transit ridership is falling. Los Angeles, with its massive investment in rail is one of the worst cases of ridership drop. Dallas is also dropping despite mass investment in commuter rail. Seattle is one of the few exceptions of places that have invested heavily where it is increasing. Although they haven't limited themselves to rail investment.

This article argues that commuter buses provide better service, not just cheaper service, than rail, to the suburbs.
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/new...f-12546347.php

More evidence that rail is still a good bet:

The Outlook for Public Transit Isn't All That Bad: The ridership decline is confined to buses. That's no reason to cut overall funding. | Bloomberg

both commuter rail and light rail ridership are at all-time highs

heavy rail... is down only slightly since its peak in 2015, after years of strong gains

The decline in U.S. transit comes almost entirely from buses.

Not brought up in the article, but which was already pointed out in this very thread, is that cities who greatly expanded, or rebuilt their bus networks (Seattle & Houston), have seen overall ridership gains.


It shouldn't come as much of a shock, but when you make something useful, people use it.