Criticisms of the Streetcar (Atlanta, Auburn: neighborhood, live, vs)

[AtlantaIsHot]

Originally Posted by MattCW

Then we should design our systems to discourage suburb-suburb commuting. That's been the problem with transportation in this region, it's always reactive, never planned. If we want to get back to the hub-and-spoke model and begin re-centralizing development, then we don't need to build a system that will "plan" for suburban sprawl.

That isn't exactly what I meant but suburban sprawl is already there... The trouble with Atlanta is the spread of half-acre lot suburban development that gobbles land far faster than population growth should warrant. First it was Buckhead. Then it was Perimter. Then it was Alpharetta. And now Johns Creek is an employment center. The nonstop spread of employment further and further from transit is a big issue. Reactive development planning rather than proactive decision making has long been the Achilles heel of Atlanta. Having said that, Perimeter Center isn't going anywhere and neither are the other employment centers. There will be jobs there no matter what. We could help get people off the roads by helping more of them get there by train. Cities expand regardless of how dense they are. There is no stopping a certain amount of expansion, but I will agree wholeheartedly that more jobs could be concentrated at transit stations.

[J2201987]

Originally Posted by AtlantaIsHot

Thank you for noting that and reminding others. You can see it in the design with the "hub" stations downtown and the "spokes" radiating outward into the suburbs. Those systems were dreamed up at a time when it was assumed the "suburbs" would keep growing and would be primarily RESIDENTIAL. It was thought that the suburbanites would still have to commute downtown for the best employment and jobs and that the majority of said jobs would remain there. At that point, it was not predicted that Tysons Corner or Perimeter Center or any of the other edge cities would exist. Today, people travel from suburb to suburb just as much as from suburb to downtown. However, I think this can be remedied by creating "hubs" in the suburban employment centers and creating new lines going into the other suburbs.

Yeah. It really would have been nice if the Atlanta region would have been planned with "nodal" development in mind, with heavy rail transit leading the way [say for example high-paying employment centers radiating around Atlanta to the south around the airport (near Old National), to the west in Adamsville/Fulton Industrial/Six Flags, to the east (near Snapfinger/Wesley Chapel), and obviously to the north with the Perimeter Center and Cumberland as it has developed now]. Shouldawouldacoulda, huh?

Originally Posted by MattCW

Then we should design our systems to discourage suburb-suburb commuting. That's been the problem with transportation in this region, it's always reactive, never planned. If we want to get back to the hub-and-spoke model and begin re-centralizing development, then we don't need to build a system that will "plan" for suburban sprawl.

I don't think that suburb-to-suburb travel is necessarily a bad thing. Many (or few, depending on who you ask) enjoy living 10-15 minutes away from their suburban place of employment. It would have been beneficial IMO for private developers to have a better relationship with local or state transportation departments. What we should have instead of the now dying "hub-and-spoke" model is more of a spider web network:


Probably not the best example but using the Seoul metro map you can see how every single line doesn't necessarily go "downtown" as each line connects to various urban, residential and employment centers. If MARTA (the heavy rail part) were utilized in "hot-spot" development along with last mile connections (via bus or light rail) at each station while setting that development on slower, local roads (and NOT off highways/arterials), the Atlanta area would likely be an easier place to get around. Sure, the sprawl would be there, but it would have been better planned, better developed, better connected sprawl.

[bryantm3]

Originally Posted by MattCW

Then we should design our systems to discourage suburb-suburb commuting. That's been the problem with transportation in this region, it's always reactive, never planned. If we want to get back to the hub-and-spoke model and begin re-centralizing development, then we don't need to build a system that will "plan" for suburban sprawl.

i've seen this rhetoric before, and i really don't get what you are on about. the situation already exists. you can't put a chokehold on the suburbs and expect them to stop existing. that's just idiocy.

[bryantm3]

i'll make one criticism that no one has raised: why are the windows tinted out like a pimpmobile? i was riding tonight and it was difficult to see out the window to any degree. if this is supposed to be an economic engine and tourist attraction... shouldn't people be able to see out of the windows?

i get having tinted windows on trains; people take long trips and it can get hot. but realistically, no one is going to ride this thing for more than 10 minutes at a time. what's the deal with the tinted-out windows. don't we want people to see the city?

none of the streetcars i can think of have these tinted out windows. check out portland's streetcar:



and ours?



blacked out like a party bus or something. clearly someone did not think this through.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by J2201987

Yeah. It really would have been nice if the Atlanta region would have been planned with "nodal" development in mind, with heavy rail transit leading the way [say for example high-paying employment centers radiating around Atlanta to the south around the airport (near Old National), to the west in Adamsville/Fulton Industrial/Six Flags, to the east (near Snapfinger/Wesley Chapel), and obviously to the north with the Perimeter Center and Cumberland as it has developed now]. Shouldawouldacoulda, huh?

I don't think that suburb-to-suburb travel is necessarily a bad thing. Many (or few, depending on who you ask) enjoy living 10-15 minutes away from their suburban place of employment. It would have been beneficial IMO for private developers to have a better relationship with local or state transportation departments. What we should have instead of the now dying "hub-and-spoke" model is more of a spider web network:

Probably not the best example but using the Seoul metro map you can see how every single line doesn't necessarily go "downtown" as each line connects to various urban, residential and employment centers. If MARTA (the heavy rail part) were utilized in "hot-spot" development along with last mile connections (via bus or light rail) at each station while setting that development on slower, local roads (and NOT off highways/arterials), the Atlanta area would likely be an easier place to get around. Sure, the sprawl would be there, but it would have been better planned, better developed, better connected sprawl.

A very sensible take on things.

We are in fact a spider web, not a "hub and spoke" city. If public transit is ever going to take hold here it will recognize that reality and adapt to it.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

i'll make one criticism that no one has raised: why are the windows tinted out like a pimpmobile? i was riding tonight and it was difficult to see out the window to any degree. if this is supposed to be an economic engine and tourist attraction... shouldn't people be able to see out of the windows?

i get having tinted windows on trains; people take long trips and it can get hot. but realistically, no one is going to ride this thing for more than 10 minutes at a time. what's the deal with the tinted-out windows. don't we want people to see the city?

none of the streetcars i can think of have these tinted out windows. check out portland's streetcar:

and ours?

blacked out like a party bus or something. clearly someone did not think this through.

Good eye for detail, bryant. And it is an important one. The blacked out windows make the streetcars seem insular and a bit forbidding. The open windows let you see people and activity, so that the tram looks more like part of the streetscape.

[hautemomma]

The ATL streetcar is so much less visually inviting or appealing.

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

i'll make one criticism that no one has raised: why are the windows tinted out like a pimpmobile? i was riding tonight and it was difficult to see out the window to any degree. if this is supposed to be an economic engine and tourist attraction... shouldn't people be able to see out of the windows?

i get having tinted windows on trains; people take long trips and it can get hot. but realistically, no one is going to ride this thing for more than 10 minutes at a time. what's the deal with the tinted-out windows. don't we want people to see the city?

none of the streetcars i can think of have these tinted out windows. check out portland's streetcar:



and ours?



blacked out like a party bus or something. clearly someone did not think this through.

Maybe because Portland has little sunshine and we get a lot? Compare this to other S70 vehicles.

[MattCW]

I didn't notice any problem with seeing out, even through the operator's compartment, which the internal windows are very heavily tinted. That's saying something because the outside light wasn't great yesterday due to the cloudy/foggy conditions.

[1lifealex]

All S-70 LRVs and streetcars have tinted windows, IMO the Atlanta streetcars look much better than Portland's streetcars and all the other cities that use the same streetcars that Portland uses seattle,Tacoma,Tucson,DC