MARTA to make an $8 billion pitch to change the face of Atlanta (Reynolds: teaching, walkable)

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by bu2

He's simply recommending approaching it the way most places do, not backwards like here where they start with either the solution or money and then try to match it to the problem.

Are we shortchanging areas where we have the highest current bus ridership? Getting better service to those areas is something that should be considered. The East side really doesn't have many work destinations. And north of Ponce is heavily SFH so its not very dense.

BeltLine, north of Ponce is more to get a transit connection to Lindbergh which would get higher ridership, than if a transfer at North Ave or have to go back south, just to go north.

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by bu2

Its called common sense, something lacking in Atlanta/Georgia transportation planning. Here they come up with the concept and try to force people to fit it or they come up with a way to get money and then figure out how to spend it. Its all backwards.

He's starting with the people and going from there.

While a lot of time, money, and effort has gone into trying to make the “solution” fit the problem, with a successful referendum it is not too late to redirect the city’s efforts to catch up with commonsense transit planning. The Legislature last month enabled Atlanta to put forward a referendum in November 2016 or 2017 for a proposed half-percent increase in the city’s sales tax to raise $2.5 billion for transit construction. Gov. Nathan Deal has not signed Senate Bill 369.


Following the above steps should be the starting point. The result likely would show that other modes can more immediately address current and future ridership and meet the pressing needs to achieve equitable access.

This access and appropriate mode choice would coordinate well with the city’s emerging emphasis on strengthening its corridors for more intense mixed use development as a balanced strategy for accommodating growing populations. In addition, such a coordinated incremental strategy would likely prove to be far more immediate, affordable, and effective than the billions now committed to building the far off streetcar, the BeltLine’s current and only plan.

Originally Posted by bu2

One thing he points out is all the emphasis on the east side when you may have more transit riders and destinations on the west side. He's proposing to figure out demand and serve demand instead of a "build it and they will come" philosophy. Now he doesn't ignore building where you can get more to come.

Originally Posted by bu2

He's simply recommending approaching it the way most places do, not backwards like here where they start with either the solution or money and then try to match it to the problem.

Are we shortchanging areas where we have the highest current bus ridership? Getting better service to those areas is something that should be considered. The East side really doesn't have many work destinations. And north of Ponce is heavily SFH so its not very dense.

As was pointed out by jsvh, the Westside IS GETTING PLENTY OF RAIL. It's like you and the person writing the article ignore every plan in the works. The most likely next phase of the streetcar / light rail buildout will include 4.8 miles strictly along the Westside Trail, only half a mile less than the Eastside Trail.

You and he also ignore that this isn't a purely transit focused effort. It's a city project, in no small part, meant to shape the future of development in the city. It's just as much an effort to connect existing places, as it is to get new ones to grow along transit routes that can handle the people.

Edit: If anything, there is a lack of common sense, and, indeed, research on his part. He ignores any possibility that transit shapes the future, and writes as if it can only be a reactionary thing. He also writes without having any idea of the future plans. He bemoans the lack of a Northside Corridor, despite the fact that there's a PLAN for that in the future. He bemoans the lack of connection to Ponce, yet ignores, or is ignorant of, the North Ave line. He doesn't mention the Clifton Corridor, or that Buckhead refused to be a part of the streetcar plan, both of which he has drawn as not being connected nodes,

[jsvh]

Yes, highways have been shaping our city for too long. Time to plan it around transit.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by fourthwarden

As was pointed out by jsvh, the Westside IS GETTING PLENTY OF RAIL. It's like you and the person writing the article ignore every plan in the works. The most likely next phase of the streetcar / light rail buildout will include 4.8 miles strictly along the Westside Trail, only half a mile less than the Eastside Trail.

You and he also ignore that this isn't a purely transit focused effort. It's a city project, in no small part, meant to shape the future of development in the city. It's just as much an effort to connect existing places, as it is to get new ones to grow along transit routes that can handle the people.

Edit: If anything, there is a lack of common sense, and, indeed, research on his part. He ignores any possibility that transit shapes the future, and writes as if it can only be a reactionary thing. He also writes without having any idea of the future plans. He bemoans the lack of a Northside Corridor, despite the fact that there's a PLAN for that in the future. He bemoans the lack of connection to Ponce, yet ignores, or is ignorant of, the North Ave line. He doesn't mention the Clifton Corridor, or that Buckhead refused to be a part of the streetcar plan, both of which he has drawn as not being connected nodes,

Uh, you didn't read his piece very well. How transit can shape the future is one of his bullet points to consider.

There's just seems to be a lot of reactionary opposition to his piece because he didn't buy the current plans lock, stock and barrel.

He is very much a pro-transit guy. He just wants it done well and prioritized well.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by jsvh

Yes, highways have been shaping our city for too long. Time to plan it around transit.

He wants to plan transit around what people do, not plan what people do around transit.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by bu2

He wants to plan transit around what people do, not plan what people do around transit.

People plan what they do around transportation.

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by bu2

Uh, you didn't read his piece very well. How transit can shape the future is one of his bullet points to consider.

There's just seems to be a lot of reactionary opposition to his piece because he didn't buy the current plans lock, stock and barrel.

He is very much a pro-transit guy. He just wants it done well and prioritized well.

Sure he states it, but he seems to discount that very option as the possibility for how quite a bit of the routing was chosen. He also only really applies that to existing commercial areas. He speaks in terms of how transit will increase usefulness of existing places, but not much about how it can create new.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by fourthwarden

Sure he states it, but he seems to discount that very option as the possibility for how quite a bit of the routing was chosen. He also only really applies that to existing commercial areas. He speaks in terms of how transit will increase usefulness of existing places, but not much about how it can create new.

We have limited transportation dollars. We need to service existing places and build them up, not adopt a "build it and they will come" mentality.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by bu2

We have limited transportation dollars. We need to service existing places and build them up, not adopt a "build it and they will come" mentality.

What routes inside the city do you have in mind that are more worthy of transportation dollars? Five miles of new interstate HOT lanes @ $500M a mile?

[primaltech]

Originally Posted by bu2

We have limited transportation dollars. We need to service existing places and build them up, not adopt a "build it and they will come" mentality.

The population and economic growth is happening regardless. If you build an infrastructure of transit, you can plan for the increased density, and accommodate the new growth in a way that maximizes quality of life.

Also keep in mind that transit is a network. You have to serve both the more built up places and the less built up places, because most people are going from one to the other. Most people aren't going from most dense area #1 to most dense area #2 as their daily commute. Having stops in those areas only, misses the point.

Purely economics speaking, the economy always needs to be growing, and serving only the existing stuff is a recipe for economic stagnation. "Build it and they will come" is a great strategy for guaranteeing continued private sector business and real estate investment.