Atlanta Streetcar (Downtown Loop) progress (Sandy Springs, Washington: yard, stations, natural gas)

[ATLondoner]

Only in Atlanta would a new public transport system be described as a 'fad'.

Look up what the DLR (Docklands Light Railway) in London has done for previously run-down areas such as Deptford & Woolwich.

[BajanYankee]

Originally Posted by ATLondoner

Only in Atlanta would a new public transport system be described as a 'fad'.

Look up what the DLR (Docklands Light Railway) in London has done for previously run-down areas such as Deptford & Woolwich.

So why doesn't Camden, NJ just build a light rail if it in fact works wonders? And again, why ride a streetcar or light rail if it's so much easier and faster to drive?

[MattCW]

And how would people have reached this special district? Businesses can't survive without customers, and the streetcar will ensure car-free access by people to the location. Bus routes can be yanked at a moment's notice.

[tonygeorgia]

Hell I could do a study for 700k and it would be ready this Friday

[BajanYankee]

Originally Posted by MattCW

And how would people have reached this special district? Businesses can't survive without customers, and the streetcar will ensure car-free access by people to the location. Bus routes can be yanked at a moment's notice.

They drive to them...just like people drive to Georgetown or Adams-Morgan in Washington, DC, which do not have transit lines (other than buses). If people are that pressed to ride transit, they could ride a bus there just as people do who visit Georgetown or Adams-Morgan. The last time I checked, a bus was considered a viable mode of transportation.

[MDAllstar]

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

But you could have gotten the same thing by simply zoning for high density and giving tax abatements/credits. You could have all of that without investing in a mode of transit that's more sentimental than practical.

What do you have against streetcars? Why do you go forum to forum trying to prove they are useless? Streetcars are about development. The increased density along routes leads to further gentrification and density which helps the city gain taxes etc. Also, streetcars provide a higher capacity than buses and that is not up for debate. Buses are everywhere. People are more inclined to move into an area with heavy rail, light rail, or street cars than just buses.

This is a very thorough comparison of buses and streetcars and at the end of the day streetcars>>>>>buses: (link)BeyondDC

[ATLondoner]

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

So why doesn't Camden, NJ just build a light rail if it in fact works wonders? And again, why ride a streetcar or light rail if it's so much easier and faster to drive?

Sorry, I have no knowledge of Camden, NJ.

But to your second point.....personally I use Marta (or public transport) when I know that I'll be going out to drink.

Or if i know traffic will be sucky....say trying to get to an evening Braves game from Buckhead.

[MDAllstar]

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

They drive to them...just like people drive to Georgetown or Adams-Morgan in Washington, DC, which do not have transit lines (other than buses). If people are that pressed to ride transit, they could ride a bus there just as people do who visit Georgetown or Adams-Morgan. The last time I checked, a bus was considered a viable mode of transportation.

That is going to become increasingly hard in D.C. since the streetcar is going up 18th street in Adams Morgan and up M street in Georgetown. Just a little inside information for you, DDOT in Washington D.C. is purposely making it difficult to drive in the city to push people into modes other than the automobile. Gabe Klein who is now in Chicago started the proposal and it has only intensified since he left. It's all going into the cities plan to have over 70% of the city commute by means other than an automobile by 2032. It also coincides with the elimination of the parking minimum that the city is about to pass. Cars are losing a ton of power and right away in D.C.


Big month puts D.C. on pace for $119 million yearly traffic camera haul | WashingtonExaminer.com

[BajanYankee]

Originally Posted by MDAllstar

What do you have against streetcars?

Streetcars are inanimate objects (when not in transit, of course). I have about as much animosity towards streetcars as I have towards mustard.

Originally Posted by MDAllstar

Why do you go forum to forum trying to prove they are useless?

What other forum have I discussed streetcars in other than the DC forum (where I used to live) and the Urban Planning forum (where it's a regular topic)?

Originally Posted by MDAllstar

Streetcars are about development. The increased density along routes leads to further gentrification and density which helps the city gain taxes etc.

The streetcar is nowhere in sight for the McMillan development in DC. Yet that's not stopping them from building 8-10 story condo buildings. And of course it's not since the city is sinking its own cash into the development! I mean, if development is the city's top priority, then just provide the incentives to develop. You don't need a streetcar to do that. Besides, you don't really have to go twisting developers' arms to get them to build condos within a half mile radius of the U.S. Capitol Building. What are they going to say? "Oh no, we can't build these condos without a streetcar. We'd only get $700,000 for them!"

Originally Posted by MDAllstar

Also, streetcars provide a higher capacity than buses and that is not up for debate.

A single streetcar also costs much more than a single bus and has no mobility advantages. They get stuck in traffic just like buses do.

Originally Posted by MDAllstar

Buses are everywhere. People are more inclined to move into an area with heavy rail, light rail, or street cars than just buses.

Heavy rail is an entirely different ball game. Streetcars provide no mobility advantage over buses. If your goal is to get a lot of people somewhere quickly, then a streetcar ain't gonna do it.

[alco89]

Originally Posted by MattCW

The New Orleans Superdome is far older than the Georgia Dome and attracts far more events than the GA Dome. Some shiny new rich person's toy isn't going to do anything for Atlanta except drive the city into bankruptcy. The Georgia Dome is fine as it is.

It's "fine" but it's not all that and rapidly becoming obsolete. The main problem is it can't make enough money for several reasons. New Orleans is a totally different situation because it is known for being a huge tourist destination. Atlanta doesn't quite have that unfortunately. Even still, the Superdome did go through a large renovation project worth $336 million. And no, it wasn't all for the roof:
The Mercedes-Benz Superdome - 2011 Enhancements

Originally Posted by MattCW

So why can't they just play in the existing Dome? To a larger crowd than could be hosted in Mr. Blank's new toy?

Oh, you're gonna love this answer: MONEY. The Dome doesn't have the luxury boxes (apparently) or the right contract deals to make enough money for Blank. This is part of the reason why the Falcons aren't worth as much as most other teams in the league.
Football's Most Valuable Teams - Forbes

I'm not arguing this point any further. This new stadium will be better for Atlanta. Period.