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.
Yes, I know what complete streets are (which is a loose term as far as actual design is concerned). I think for most of S. Cobb Dr, intersections can be completely at-grade. Windy Hill may be the exception. There's additional strategic reasons for the separated grade on Windy Hill - it's to extend Smyrna's mixed-use downtown footprint, get it to grow towards S. Cobb Dr and eventually have private investors rebuild that blighted NW corner of Smyrna. There's actually some high-value residential seeded in that NW corner, however the commercial districts are old, blighted 50s "strip" cooridors.
I did a couple mock-ups of what i think would work very well at the Concord Rd intersection on S. Cobb Dr, everything at-grade and it'll still work for an intersection like that.
First, building a sort of walkable grid, as much as possible, by turning private roads through the retail areas into city roads with sidewalks. Making this a small urban node to attract mixed-use development. Some of the new connector roads would be one-way, some two-way. This would also allow drivers to bypass the main intersection if they are shopping or turning, and in turn they'd be exposed to retail that isn't visible from the road.
Also, limit the number of full intersections by using the collector lanes.
The underlying map was a little outdated since there's now trails on Concord Rd and medians.
The yellow lines show new road connections and re-alignments. The existing roads are already depicted on the map. The blue lines show the collectors. The green lines show median. The ones between the collector and main lanes would be ROW for LRT. I didn't depict bicycle paths on this map because I think it'd make it confusing, but it's on the picture below this.
Close-up of the intersection itself. Decreasing the number of turns by having separated boulevard-style collector lanes. Include a ROW for future LRT and include bicycle/pedestrian trails. Include pedestrian-refuge on the center median. All the state-owned ROW may be lost in the process, but if not, add some trees along the bicycle/pedestrian trails.
I didn't include LRT platforms out of laziness.
Last edited by netdragon; 06-27-2014 at 04:13 PM..
Yes, I know what complete streets are (which is a loose term as far as actual design is concerned). I think for most of S. Cobb Dr, intersections can be completely at-grade. Windy Hill may be the exception. There's additional strategic reasons for the separated grade on Windy Hill - it's to extend Smyrna's mixed-use downtown footprint, get it to grow towards S. Cobb Dr and eventually have private investors rebuild that blighted NW corner of Smyrna. There's actually some high-value residential seeded in that NW corner, however the commercial districts are old, blighted 50s "strip" cooridors.
I did a couple mock-ups of what i think would work very well at the Concord Rd intersection on S. Cobb Dr, everything at-grade and it'll still work for an intersection like that.
First, building a sort of walkable grid, as much as possible, by turning private roads through the retail areas into city roads with sidewalks. Making this a small urban node to attract mixed-use development. Some of the new connector roads would be one-way, some two-way. This would also allow drivers to bypass the main intersection if they are shopping or turning, and in turn they'd be exposed to retail that isn't visible from the road.
Also, limit the number of full intersections by using the collector lanes.
The underlying map was a little outdated since there's now trails on Concord Rd and medians.
The yellow lines show new road connections and re-alignments. The existing roads are already depicted on the map. The blue lines show the collectors. The green lines show median. The ones between the collector and main lanes would be ROW for LRT. I didn't depict bicycle paths on this map because I think it'd make it confusing, but it's on the picture below this.
Close-up of the intersection itself. Decreasing the number of turns by having separated boulevard-style collector lanes. Include a ROW for future LRT and include bicycle/pedestrian trails. Include pedestrian-refuge on the center median. All the state-owned ROW may be lost in the process, but if not, add some trees along the bicycle/pedestrian trails.
I didn't include LRT platforms out of laziness.
I like your separated boulevard-style concept with the collector lanes.
But the European-style "Complete Streets" urban boulevard managed arterial concept does not necessarily involve the inclusion of continuous outside collector lanes between major intersections.
The European-style "Complete Streets" urban boulevard managed arterial concept primarily involves transforming a major surface arterial like South Cobb Drive into a super-arterial like route with very-few, if any, additional outside lanes between grade-separated intersections leaving more land for landscaping, pedestrian, biking and transit facilities and linear greenspace on both sides of the roadway.
(...The Euro-style "Complete Streets" urban boulevard managed arterial concept basically involves the conversion of an existing major surface arterial like South Cobb Drive into a 6-lane urban boulevard (4 through lanes with 2 outside lanes for transit (bus or Light Rail Transit), the replacement of the continuous center-turn lane with a landscaped median and pedestrian islands at the remaining at-grade intersections and superior pedestrian and bicycle facilities on the outside of the 6-lane roadway landscaped with trees and greenery...
...The single outside transit lane on either side of the boulevard would transition into at-grade intersections at major junctions where the 2 inside through lanes in each direction would continue under the at-grade intersection as variably-tolled through/express lanes...
...Multimodal urban boulevard managed arterials like GA 280 South Cobb Drive and US 41 Cobb Parkway would also feature variable speed limits to increase safety for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users at at-grade pedestrian/bicycle crossings and at-grade intersections.)
The grade separations at major intersections would also be what helps to pay for the overhaul of the roadway into a much more pedestrian and bicycle-friendly and transit-compatible corridor.
Without the grade-separations at multiple junctions (with tolled grade-separated through lanes under at-grade surface intersections), paying for the conversion of the arterial roadway into an heavily-landscaped and pedestrian/bicycle/transit-compatible urban boulevard becomes much more challenging (but not necessarily impossible).
Born2Roll and others: Can you give me some ideas on what to say on my email to the Cobb Commissioner Bob Ott when I email him to say that I disagree that BRT/LRT isn't needed in Cobb County? How would you change, reword the following. It needs to be compelling to a commissioner on election year that panders to East Cobb residents and is very very numbers-driven. Some main points I want to bring up:
Bob Ott, I disagree with your assertion that we don't need rail. As such, I would like you the council I to explore public-private partnerships with developers to reduce cost of building LRT (not BRT) from Town Center to Cumberland, with a BRT spur into Fulton county. E.g. sharing fares with private entities and also offering development rights at main station/platforms like the MARTA CEO is exploring for MARTA.
Problems:
* Cobb's current anti-transit policies are failing to lead to economic development beyond residential development and some residential-oriented mixed-use. NW metro Atlanta office market is the third lowest office market in terms of construction, based on NAI Brennan Goddard numbers and others. The NW Atlanta market hasn't had significant office construction in 12 years. The current shortage is a result of overflow from Perimeter Center, not due to Cobb's own actions.
* Lack of rail transit has limited Cobb business access to talent, combined with Perimeter Center's transit and central location, has made Perimeter Center the top choice even though Perimeter Center CID was formed later than Cumberland CID.
* Continuing to improve roads that go through Cobb allows Cherokee and Bartow to simply grow more, putting more pressure on our roads and decreasing growth in our land value. We should be making it more effective for future commuters in those markets to take rail from Town Center instead of continuing to widen roads so they can simply bypass Cobb County.
Benefits of transit:
* Transit-oriented development will be a benefit to Cobb County One Overton Park, a single 15-story office building in Cumberland, paid $1.042 in total property taxes ($330k in county property taxes, pus $563k in school taxes, and $149k to the CID). All on only 3 acres of land. Keep in mind that the $563k in school taxes is all without causing any burden on the schools. Compare that to a 3-acre portion of a high-end subdivision which only pays about $50k-$100k in total taxes and creates a burden on the schools. The school system is everyone's issue, even if it isn't under the control of the commissioners.
* Transit will centralize high density development in the center of the county where we best have the infrastructure to handle it, saving tax-payers money due to limited additional road construction needed. That also allows the rest of Cobb to keep its small-town character.
* The Braves stadium will provide us guaranteed ridership to Cobb county from Perimeter Center and Arts Center, which will help subsidize operating costs.
For once, you and I agree on the issue, netdragon. Good points. I would emphasize the cost of road construction vs. the cost of transit construction vs. the capacity and footprint of each. I'd also emphasize Perimeter and Buckhead and if you can, provide a basic/rough timeline of when developments in those areas developed in relation to the start of MARTA service to those areas.
MattCW: Can you please provide the facts I can give Bob Ott on why BRT is not much cheaper than LRT for the same route, based on capacity and construction, especially if you want BRT to be upgradeable? And other disadvantages to BRT? I can't remember what that example you mentioned of an upgrade that was really expensive. Cobb leaders like to look at other examples for comparison of relative success/failure.
Born 2 Roll: Can you provide a short description about the public/private funding aspect of using rights to build mixed-use to get private developers to help fund the rail? The thing I have trouble with is that MARTA already owns the land for the stations and can sell air rights. Cobb, actually the state, doesn't own anything but the road ROW. I'm not sure how it would work in this case.
MattCW: Can you please provide the facts I can give Bob Ott on why BRT is not much cheaper than LRT for the same route, based on capacity and construction, especially if you want BRT to be upgradeable? And other disadvantages to BRT? I can't remember what that example you mentioned of an upgrade that was really expensive. Cobb leaders like to look at other examples for comparison of relative success/failure.
I can't provide many exact facts right this second, but I think I can point you in the right direction.
A few good systems to look at the budgets of operating both buses and LRT is Salt Lake City's Traxx, and Los Angeles's MTA. Of the two, only Los Angeles operates BRT, the Orange and Silver Lines. It was the Orange Line that I read somewhere that it would cost as much to upgrade as to just have built LRT in the first place (so costing twice as much to "upgrade" counting the initial system). But think about it logically (though if your goal is facts, this may not be the best approach), what's the difference to laying LRT tracks in the concrete of a road, or in the concrete of a busway? None whatsoever. The only way there might be savings is if the stations are built able to serve both with minimal modification, or if the buses are electric, able to reuse electrical infrastructure. You might also want to look up LRT construction and focus on systems, parts of systems, or system extensions that have construction in-street and construction on a separate right of way and compare them. I have a hunch, though I've never looked it up, that the separate right of way (with conventional crossties) is cheaper than a continuous concrete strip, not to mention not having to work around existing traffic.
Capacity wise, you have to build your facts piecemeal from the various manufacturers and existing systems, but it boils down to this. A bus and a light rail vehicle have maximum seated capacities of about 60, with the light rail vehicle being up to 80 sometimes. Standing capacity in a LRV is significantly higher at 195 people per vehicle for the Siemens S70. For LRT, to increase capacity, all you need is another vehicle, but line capacity in trains per unit time remains the same. For BRT however, you can't really operate vehicles close enough together to be considered a single "train" so the extra vehicles eats into overall system capacity as well as requiring another, paid, driver. Unless BRT stations are built to accommodate multiple buses, any following buses also have to wait to unload while most LRT stations are built to handle the full train so loading and unloading is far quicker on LRT. The LRT vehicles also usually have far more doors to move people in and out of than buses.
LRT is also more efficient due to the lower rolling resistance of steel wheels on steel rail which further reduces operating costs. Some of this efficiency/environmental gap has been closed recently with hybrid or electric buses so the scales may have tipped, or be nearly balanced, but the numbers are surely out there.
One point that may be worth mentioning, is that the cost to build HRT instead of LRT is not that much higher, and you really do get a lot more from it especially in terms of capacity and speed at the cost of a little bit of flexibility (not able to operate in-street, not able to make tight turns).
Quote:
Originally Posted by netdragon
Born 2 Roll: Can you provide a short description about the public/private funding aspect of using rights to build mixed-use to get private developers to help fund the rail? The thing I have trouble with is that MARTA already owns the land for the stations and can sell air rights. Cobb, actually the state, doesn't own anything but the road ROW. I'm not sure how it would work in this case.
I know you asked this of B2R, but I'd like to point out that this is why I've said that the old model of "own the land around the line" doesn't work in most areas today since to make it work, would involve acquiring the land cheap, which is unlikely to happen. The only way I can think of this working is to impose a tax overlay on the areas (sort of like the Beltline) so the end result is the same, the serviced areas, through general economic activity, generate the funding for it. Just the funding happens to "come from" the government rather than from the private entities.
Born2Roll and others: Can you give me some ideas on what to say on my email to the Cobb Commissioner Bob Ott when I email him to say that I disagree that BRT/LRT isn't needed in Cobb County? How would you change, reword the following. It needs to be compelling to a commissioner on election year that panders to East Cobb residents and is very very numbers-driven. Some main points I want to bring up:
Bob Ott, I disagree with your assertion that we don't need rail. As such, I would like you the council I to explore public-private partnerships with developers to reduce cost of building LRT (not BRT) from Town Center to Cumberland, with a BRT spur into Fulton county. E.g. sharing fares with private entities and also offering development rights at main station/platforms like the MARTA CEO is exploring for MARTA.
Problems:
* Cobb's current anti-transit policies are failing to lead to economic development beyond residential development and some residential-oriented mixed-use. NW metro Atlanta office market is the third lowest office market in terms of construction, based on NAI Brennan Goddard numbers and others. The NW Atlanta market hasn't had significant office construction in 12 years. The current shortage is a result of overflow from Perimeter Center, not due to Cobb's own actions.
* Lack of rail transit has limited Cobb business access to talent, combined with Perimeter Center's transit and central location, has made Perimeter Center the top choice even though Perimeter Center CID was formed later than Cumberland CID.
* Continuing to improve roads that go through Cobb allows Cherokee and Bartow to simply grow more, putting more pressure on our roads and decreasing growth in our land value. We should be making it more effective for future commuters in those markets to take rail from Town Center instead of continuing to widen roads so they can simply bypass Cobb County.
Benefits of transit:
* Transit-oriented development will be a benefit to Cobb County One Overton Park, a single 15-story office building in Cumberland, paid $1.042 [million] in total property taxes ($330k in county property taxes, pus $563k in school taxes, and $149k to the CID). All on only 3 acres of land. Keep in mind that the $563k in school taxes is all without causing any burden on the schools. Compare that to a 3-acre portion of a high-end subdivision which only pays about $50k-$100k in total taxes and creates a burden on the schools. The school system is everyone's issue, even if it isn't under the control of the commissioners.
* Transit will centralize high density development in the center of the county where we best have the infrastructure to handle it, saving tax-payers money due to limited additional road construction needed. That also allows the rest of Cobb to keep its small-town character.
* The Braves stadium will provide us guaranteed ridership to Cobb county from Perimeter Center and Arts Center, which will help subsidize operating costs.
This is an excellent letter. You are definitely on the right track by suggesting that Cobb County government look to the private sector for financing of future high-capacity transit service through the county.
Looking to partner with the private sector for transit financing in an era of dwindling funding from traditional sources (sales taxes, federal funding, etc) is especially key and will be very-important moving forward.
This is an excellent letter. You are definitely on the right track by suggesting that Cobb County government look to the private sector for financing of future high-capacity transit service through the county.
Looking to partner with the private sector for transit financing in an era of dwindling funding from traditional sources (sales taxes, federal funding, etc) is especially key and will be very-important moving forward.
Thanks, can you please provide some examples that fit within the reality of Cobb that I can use in the letter? E.g. unlike MARTA, Cobb doesn't own significant chunks of land around stations (the stations, maybe with a couple exceptions would likely be platforms on widened medians). So what kind of incentives can the county offer?
Born 2 Roll: Can you provide a short description about the public/private funding aspect of using rights to build mixed-use to get private developers to help fund the rail? The thing I have trouble with is that MARTA already owns the land for the stations and can sell air rights. Cobb, actually the state, doesn't own anything but the road ROW. I'm not sure how it would work in this case.
In the case of implementing a high-capacity transit line along the US 41 Cobb Parkway corridor, what would happen is that since the US 41 Cobb Parkway right-of-way is owned by the State of Georgia, Cobb County would most-likely have to partner with the state to raise money from the private sector to buy land for future mixed-use high-capacity transit stations through the I-75/US 41 Northwest Corridor (along the US 41 Cobb Parkway corridor as well as in the Town Center Mall and Kennesaw State University areas, etc...but particularly along the state-owned US 41 ROW).
Raising money from the private sector to buy land for future mixed-use high-capacity transit stations could be accomplished in multiple ways, including selling shares in the current CCT (Cobb Community Transit) agency to private investors, selling the entire project to private investors and/or forming Value Capture taxing districts (or targeted tax overlays) out of commercial properties along the future high-capacity transit right-of-way.
(Value Capture taxing districts include Tax Increment Financing (or TIF which only collects property tax revenue from new commercial development along a future/new transit line), Tax Allocation Districts (which collects property and/or sales tax revenue from both new and existing commercial development along a transit line) or self-taxing CIDs (Community Improvement Districts) where commercial property owners agree to tax themselves to fund a portion of the cost of transportation improvements (like property owners in the Perimeter Center CID are taxing themselves to help fund the reconstruction of the I-285/GA 400 interchange).
Last edited by Born 2 Roll; 07-01-2014 at 12:36 AM..
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.
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.
