MARTA transit plan includes 21 miles of light rail (Atlanta: ferry, corporate)

[Mutiny77]

Originally Posted by arjay57

I sure do!

The key to building transit ridership is convenience. Make it frequent, dependable and reasonably close and people will ride.

If you can walk to the corner and be reasonably sure a bus will be along in a few minutes, you may just hop on. But if you've got to walk half a mile and wait indefinitely in the boiling sun, folks who can afford it will look for something else.

It takes more than that. As long as its cheap to drive and park, most people will make the choice to drive every single time, especially considering flexibility. It's much harder to fit a last minute stop in your routine when you're taking the bus (or train) as opposed to driving. But at least with rail, avoiding traffic is a major benefit, as long as first/last mile connectivity doesn't cancel out that benefit.

Basically, as long as Atlanta remains a low-density metro where land isn't at a premium (compared to its denser counterparts), then you can't expect a sustained high rate of transit usage. There are still ways to increase transit usage without Atlanta becoming DC or NYC in terms of density/land use patterns though. As it has been said before, I think this is where Chicago can really be a useful model of sorts for Atlanta.

[samiwas1]

Originally Posted by Mutiny77

There are still ways to increase transit usage without Atlanta becoming DC or NYC in terms of density/land use patterns though. As it has been said before, I think this is where Chicago can really be a useful model of sorts for Atlanta.

Chicago should absolutely be a model. While its city center is decidedly more dense, its metro as a whole is not far from ours. According to wikipedia, here are the densities:
Chicago: 10,856 square miles with 9.47 million population = 873ppsm
Atlanta: 8,376 square miles with 5.89 million population = 703ppsm

Chicago L: 8 lines, with 103 miles of track, and 145 stations
Chicago RTA: 11 lines, 488 miles of track, and 242 stations
Chicago Total: 19 lines, 591 miles of track, and 387 stations
Atlanta: 4 lines (more like 2.5), with 48 miles of track, and 38 stations

So, with about 30% more area and 25% higher density, they achieve 1130% more track miles and 900% more stations and make it work. Their L trains go only about as far as our perimeter, but their Metro commuter trains reach as far as what would be the alabama state line, Rome, Gainesville, LaGrange, and Athens. Once you get a certain distance away, the train is going to take favor over the car simply because of the expense of gas and the attention you have to pay. Nobody really wants to drive 90 minutes each way. But 6-10 miles..the car will likely win unless you make it oppressive on purpose.

[aries4118]

Originally Posted by Mutiny77

...

There are still ways to increase transit usage without Atlanta becoming DC or NYC in terms of density/land use patterns though. As it has been said before, I think this is where Chicago can really be a useful model of sorts for Atlanta.

Yes!

[aries4118]

Originally Posted by samiwas1

Chicago should absolutely be a model. While its city center is decidedly more dense, its metro as a whole is not far from ours. According to wikipedia, here are the densities:
Chicago: 10,856 square miles with 9.47 million population = 873ppsm
Atlanta: 8,376 square miles with 5.89 million population = 703ppsm

Chicago L: 8 lines, with 103 miles of track, and 145 stations
Chicago RTA: 11 lines, 488 miles of track, and 242 stations
Chicago Total: 19 lines, 591 miles of track, and 387 stations
Atlanta: 4 lines (more like 2.5), with 48 miles of track, and 38 stations

So, with about 30% more area and 25% higher density, they achieve 1130% more track miles and 900% more stations and make it work. Their L trains go only about as far as our perimeter, but their Metro commuter trains reach as far as what would be the alabama state line, Rome, Gainesville, LaGrange, and Athens. Once you get a certain distance away, the train is going to take favor over the car simply because of the expense of gas and the attention you have to pay. Nobody really wants to drive 90 minutes each way. But 6-10 miles..the car will likely win unless you make it oppressive on purpose.

Thank you for outlining this.

So good to see.

[J2rescue]

Originally Posted by samiwas1

Chicago should absolutely be a model. While its city center is decidedly more dense, its metro as a whole is not far from ours. According to wikipedia, here are the densities:
Chicago: 10,856 square miles with 9.47 million population = 873ppsm
Atlanta: 8,376 square miles with 5.89 million population = 703ppsm

Chicago L: 8 lines, with 103 miles of track, and 145 stations
Chicago RTA: 11 lines, 488 miles of track, and 242 stations
Chicago Total: 19 lines, 591 miles of track, and 387 stations
Atlanta: 4 lines (more like 2.5), with 48 miles of track, and 38 stations

So, with about 30% more area and 25% higher density, they achieve 1130% more track miles and 900% more stations and make it work. Their L trains go only about as far as our perimeter, but their Metro commuter trains reach as far as what would be the alabama state line, Rome, Gainesville, LaGrange, and Athens. Once you get a certain distance away, the train is going to take favor over the car simply because of the expense of gas and the attention you have to pay. Nobody really wants to drive 90 minutes each way. But 6-10 miles..the car will likely win unless you make it oppressive on purpose.

Because of the way that metro areas are determined (commuting patterns) density across the entire metro doesn't tell us much. The urban area density is much more informative. From urban area density we can see that the two metros are not at all similar revealing a much denser central core in Chicago with a more rural character and less sprawl beyond. Obviously the density in Chicago makes transit much more useful.

Atlanta Urban area - 2,645.4 square miles, 4,515,419 population
Chicago Urban area - 2,442.8 square miles, 8,608,208 population

Beyond the urban area
Atlanta - 5,730.6 square miles, 1,374,000 population
Chicago - 8,413.2 square miles, 862,000 population


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...es_urban_areas

[J2rescue]

Originally Posted by MattCW

The problem with the whole idea of "entirely within X" is you're not looking at the big picture. A service that's "entirely within Dekalb County" for example may mean people who would otherwise drive into Atlanta, will now take transit, taking those people off of Atlanta streets. I know for me, if I had the full Clifton Corridor available, I'd likely use it 2-3 times per week instead of driving on Atlanta's roads those 2-3 times per week.

I think I am focused on the big picture. The Clifton corridor while needed, will change virtually nothing in the city. Beltline transit on the other hand will build and city that is connected, walkable, green, beautiful and equitable. The Beltline will and already is clearly transforming this city and therefore should be the highest priority for the city's tax revenue.

[architect77]

Originally Posted by samiwas1

Chicago should absolutely be a model. While its city center is decidedly more dense, its metro as a whole is not far from ours. According to wikipedia, here are the densities:
Chicago: 10,856 square miles with 9.47 million population = 873ppsm
Atlanta: 8,376 square miles with 5.89 million population = 703ppsm

Chicago L: 8 lines, with 103 miles of track, and 145 stations
Chicago RTA: 11 lines, 488 miles of track, and 242 stations
Chicago Total: 19 lines, 591 miles of track, and 387 stations
Atlanta: 4 lines (more like 2.5), with 48 miles of track, and 38 stations

So, with about 30% more area and 25% higher density, they achieve 1130% more track miles and 900% more stations and make it work. Their L trains go only about as far as our perimeter, but their Metro commuter trains reach as far as what would be the alabama state line, Rome, Gainesville, LaGrange, and Athens. Once you get a certain distance away, the train is going to take favor over the car simply because of the expense of gas and the attention you have to pay. Nobody really wants to drive 90 minutes each way. But 6-10 miles..the car will likely win unless you make it oppressive on purpose.

And Chicago and Illinois are so far in debt that people are leaving in droves.

Until it's quantified how much of the hemorrhaging is coming from transit, this argument can't be made.

[samiwas1]

Originally Posted by J2rescue

Because of the way that metro areas are determined (commuting patterns) density across the entire metro doesn't tell us much. The urban area density is much more informative. From urban area density we can see that the two metros are not at all similar revealing a much denser central core in Chicago with a more rural character and less sprawl beyond. Obviously the density in Chicago makes transit much more useful.

Atlanta Urban area - 2,645.4 square miles, 4,515,419 population
Chicago Urban area - 2,442.8 square miles, 8,608,208 population

Beyond the urban area
Atlanta - 5,730.6 square miles, 1,374,000 population
Chicago - 8,413.2 square miles, 862,000 population


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...es_urban_areas

That's a valid point too. But, even using those numbers, they have twice the density, but still more than 12 times as much track and more than ten times as many stations. Our rail network is not even in the same universe, and that's why it's not considered very useful to most.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by samiwas1

Chicago should absolutely be a model. While its city center is decidedly more dense, its metro as a whole is not far from ours. According to wikipedia, here are the densities:
Chicago: 10,856 square miles with 9.47 million population = 873ppsm
Atlanta: 8,376 square miles with 5.89 million population = 703ppsm

Chicago L: 8 lines, with 103 miles of track, and 145 stations
Chicago RTA: 11 lines, 488 miles of track, and 242 stations
Chicago Total: 19 lines, 591 miles of track, and 387 stations
Atlanta: 4 lines (more like 2.5), with 48 miles of track, and 38 stations

So, with about 30% more area and 25% higher density, they achieve 1130% more track miles and 900% more stations and make it work. Their L trains go only about as far as our perimeter, but their Metro commuter trains reach as far as what would be the alabama state line, Rome, Gainesville, LaGrange, and Athens. Once you get a certain distance away, the train is going to take favor over the car simply because of the expense of gas and the attention you have to pay. Nobody really wants to drive 90 minutes each way. But 6-10 miles..the car will likely win unless you make it oppressive on purpose.

There's some inconsistencies on Wiki. Without adding up the areas of the counties, its hard to tell what is going on.

The urban areas show Chicago much denser:
Chicago 2,443 sq miles 8.608 population-3,524
Atlanta 2,645 sq miles 4.535 population-1,706

If both were right, Chicago would have 862k in 8,413 sq. miles or 102/sq miles and Atlanta 1.355 million in 5,732 sq. miles, or 236/sq mile outside the urban areas. That just doesn't make sense.

<edit> See someone else already noted that.

[cqholt]

https://twitter.com/cqholt/status/1038902253254598656