Why there is no Marta in Cobb or Gwinnett (Atlanta: appointed, buy)

[JMatl]

Originally Posted by Jack Apple

Because "this region" like any region consists of people. And these people don't want it. Why do you think Cobb is growing so fast?

And you know this how? How about you share the last time Cobb voted on MARTA.

[SEAandATL]

Originally Posted by Space_League

We don't want the train. Sure sitting on a public transit vs bumper to bumper traffic if it went directly from your house to your office and back would be preferable, but it doesn't work like that. you drive to the train station, wait, jam pack onto the train and then get off the train and walk to your destination. Want to stop at the butcher and the dry cleaner on your way home? too bad, the train only goes where it goes. To me the car is about freedom and privacy. Train is about convenience but it's never going to be convenient in a place like Cobb County

Even in the worst traffic conditions, it's still faster to drive than taking public transit, and not just in Atlanta but even in cities that have great public transit. The one thing about public transit is it's less stress and less hassle, don't have to deal with road rage, and having to worry about parking so those perks might outweigh spending more time from your door to your destination.

[cwkimbro]

Originally Posted by SEAandATL

Even in the worst traffic conditions, it's still faster to drive than taking public transit, and not just in Atlanta but even in cities that have great public transit. The one thing about public transit is it's less stress and less hassle, don't have to deal with road rage, and having to worry about parking so those perks might outweigh spending more time from your door to your destination.

To a degree I agree.

What I think there is some fuzziness to this and where there could be some disagreement is public transit supports different land use and potential lifestyles in a city. It's particularly good for inner residential neighborhoods that are allowed to be dense (and not just a few blocks from any stop).

The public transit user might spend 40 minutes, including making a connection and travel only 2-3 miles point-to-point, but they can live in a dense community where they couldn't afford a yard/full house and potentially a car and have a social lifestyle conducive to meeting people.

The typical driver could live further out of town and still spend 40 minutes commuting, travel longer distances, have a yard, and a cheaper per square foot home and reliable public transit would not be an option.

Both parties are really spending 40 minutes.

Even the intown driver probably has a 40 minute commute, if they can't get to the freeway and have congested surface streets to get out of their neighborhood and have to take the time to get from their house to parking and from parking to their destination. Also, if they have trouble finding parking at the end of the day. That takes time.

An interesting thing about studying cities is they find older Italian cities that were primarily built for walking only, cities that were built mostly for public transit use, and cities that were mostly auto-centric typically had consumers making choices on having about the same commute time (on average), but each mode let them travel different distances and had different advantages/disadvantages.

So when we build cities a few things we can strategize is:

- Spread job centers outward. It's better to be multi-nodal, rather than dump all eggs in one basket

- Have a combination of transportation uses and cater to all parties. Make density for walkers within a 30 minute walk of job centers. Make medium density for transit commuters in the medium distance niche where transit takes 40 minutes. Then make auto-centric development possible when you can't afford transit in an area, but people can drive 40 minutes to a job center.

That's the best way to maximize the populations proximity to a job center, in terms of time.

Where I find Space League's argument fall short is he's trying to make large swaths of land to be built only 1 way. If Cobb has transit and has focused dense areas, it can foster a good social scene for some types of populations, make Cobb's job centers more accessible. Also, we can connect job nodes to let others from dense area across town commute between each other. That means fewer people can be on the road, while more total people could access a single job center.

Where I'm understanding of the argument, is too many people want to think of expensive transit investment as a wide spread thing that covers the whole region and support auto-centric lifestyles/development. That has increasing costs.


Btw, this is why I don't want to give up on transit on the Beltline, despite people's worries. It's the one thing we have that primed for that medium density neighborhood development near the major jobs center, but walking into town isn't really an option.

[Gulch]

Originally Posted by Jack Apple

I don't think it. I know it. Apparently you're young and have never studied the history of MARTA and malls. lol

So you're saying that Lenox and Perimeter have issues because of MARTA? Care to back up that statement with numbers/facts?

Originally Posted by Jack Apple

Because "this region" like any region consists of people. And these people don't want it. Why do you think Cobb is growing so fast?

Cobb's population growth rate has slowed down significantly from 10-20 years ago, so it's not growing the way it was back in the 80s/90s. Also, there are many of us in Cobb County that would love a MARTA rail connection, but never even have had the opportunity to participate in a MARTA referendum.

[ggplicks]

Honestly I see both sides of the equation. Yes more transit everywhere in the metro would make sense, but even with the transit MARTA has, ridership isn't very good. I read that Montreal, a city 3 times smaller than Atlanta, has like 4x the ridership with far less population. And that has to do with the fact that Montreal is a dense urban center with good city planning. The vast majority of MARTA stations have garbage land use, being it right next to a strip mall, drive thru, empty plot of land, etc. Honestly I feel you'd have to bulldoze alot of the metro and start over to make transit here make sense

[sedimenjerry]

Originally Posted by ggplicks

Honestly I see both sides of the equation. Yes more transit everywhere in the metro would make sense, but even with the transit MARTA has, ridership isn't very good. I read that Montreal, a city 3 times smaller than Atlanta, has like 4x the ridership with far less population. And that has to do with the fact that Montreal is a dense urban center with good city planning. The vast majority of MARTA stations have garbage land use, being it right next to a strip mall, drive thru, empty plot of land, etc. Honestly I feel you'd have to bulldoze alot of the metro and start over to make transit here make sense

I was in Montreal a year ago and rode the metro quite a bit. I did notice a big difference not only in ridership but also how dense the city is. Just going quickly off Wikipedia cause I'm lazy, the metro population of Montreal is only 4.2 million compared to 6.1 million for Atlanta. Looking at just the city, Montreal has a population of 1.7 million in 166 sq miles while Atlanta has only around 500k in 136 sq miles. The population density of Montreal is well over double that of Atlanta. Walking around downtown, the city felt larger than Atlanta despite not having the same metro population. I didn't make it outside of downtown, but a lot of the metro stations are pretty much completely integrated with some other form of development whether it be a mall or the Bell Centre. Partially this is for avoiding the absurdly cold Montreal winters but still.

Full disclosure, I was there during F1 race weekend BUT, it was pretty clear who was there for the race and who was just a normal Montreal citizen going about their daily lives. I got the impression that most people that live anywhere near the metro actually take it. Because the ridership was so high, it never felt unsafe (despite a noticeable gritty look). I have a Swedish friend who's here for just a couple years. He's never owned a car. Back home he lives that fully car free lifestyle and walks, bikes, or takes the train. It was quite a culture shock to move to Alpharetta and have to drive nearly everywhere (he still tries to walk). He has no issue taking MARTA but he has said that it (and other North American systems) feel wayyyy less safe than other places in the world that he's been to and a large part of that is how empty MARTA often is. If someone who wants to take the train doesn't feel 100% safe, how can you expect Atlanta suburbanites to adopt the train.

[JMatl]

Originally Posted by sedimenjerry

I was in Montreal a year ago and rode the metro quite a bit. I did notice a big difference not only in ridership but also how dense the city is. Just going quickly off Wikipedia cause I'm lazy, the metro population of Montreal is only 4.2 million compared to 6.1 million for Atlanta. Looking at just the city, Montreal has a population of 1.7 million in 166 sq miles while Atlanta has only around 500k in 136 sq miles. The population density of Montreal is well over double that of Atlanta. Walking around downtown, the city felt larger than Atlanta despite not having the same metro population. I didn't make it outside of downtown, but a lot of the metro stations are pretty much completely integrated with some other form of development whether it be a mall or the Bell Centre. Partially this is for avoiding the absurdly cold Montreal winters but still.

Full disclosure, I was there during F1 race weekend BUT, it was pretty clear who was there for the race and who was just a normal Montreal citizen going about their daily lives. I got the impression that most people that live anywhere near the metro actually take it. Because the ridership was so high, it never felt unsafe (despite a noticeable gritty look). I have a Swedish friend who's here for just a couple years. He's never owned a car. Back home he lives that fully car free lifestyle and walks, bikes, or takes the train. It was quite a culture shock to move to Alpharetta and have to drive nearly everywhere (he still tries to walk). He has no issue taking MARTA but he has said that it (and other North American systems) feel wayyyy less safe than other places in the world that he's been to and a large part of that is how empty MARTA often is. If someone who wants to take the train doesn't feel 100% safe, how can you expect Atlanta suburbanites to adopt the train.

It's very similar in Toronto. Their subway is also integrated into commercial development in the core, and is routinely packed no matter the hour. During rush hours, there's a train every 2 to 3 minutes.

[cranberrysaus]

DC sort of feels the same way. The Metro is similar in age to MARTA, but both rail and bus are much more heavily utilized, especially by professionals working in the city - which gives it the feeling of being safer.

[SEAandATL]

Originally Posted by cranberrysaus

DC sort of feels the same way. The Metro is similar in age to MARTA, but both rail and bus are much more heavily utilized, especially by professionals working in the city - which gives it the feeling of being safer.

And also by tourists.

[wlouisharris2000]

At this point it's more about taxes and usage. A lot of people in Cobb and Gwinnett don't want to pay extra taxes for something they won't use, but they will spend toll money to pay for the new toll lanes that are going in.