MARTA unveils its dream project list for November Referendum (Atlanta: office, tickets)

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by primaltech

I'm kind of with arjay on the buses thing.

And don't get me wrong, I like rail and high capacity projects.

But if they were to put 100% of this $3 billion or however much it is, simply into buses and buses and only buses (and drivers, etc), for use only in the city proper (and re-design routes, straighten and simplify routes, etc), then the city might actually end up with one of the best transit systems in the entire country.

I mean, seems to me that would be enough money to basically guarantee that every corner of the city has a bus coming every 10 or 15 minutes, 24x7x365.

That seems like a better net result than, one part of the Beltline and a few streets getting a streetcar, plus some small enhancements to a few bus routes. To the rider, a streetcar isn't really that much better than a bus, anyway.

You and Arajay are under this idea that running more buses will instantly solve the issue, but it will only cause bus bunching (Bus Bunching Explained Visually). On NYC's choices and the struggles with bus bunching - Second Ave. Sagas :: Second Ave. Sagas
Unless of course the buses were given dedicated lanes, then it would make an impact. The BeltLine LRT will help tremendously as we see developing sub-markets along it (PCM/Murder Kroger office development) and more dense development along it. Having transit along it and crosstown routes will allow more trips by transit.
We are all aware of the stigma that many Atlantans have towards buses. There are several routes that are very straight and frequent, yet are mostly ridden by transit-dependent riders and not choice riders.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by cqholt

You and Arajay are under this idea that running more buses will instantly solve the issue, but it will only cause bus bunching (Bus Bunching Explained Visually). On NYC's choices and the struggles with bus bunching - Second Ave. Sagas :: Second Ave. Sagas
Unless of course the buses were given dedicated lanes, then it would make an impact. The BeltLine LRT will help tremendously as we see developing sub-markets along it (PCM/Murder Kroger office development) and more dense development along it. Having transit along it and crosstown routes will allow more trips by transit.
We are all aware of the stigma that many Atlantans have towards buses. There are several routes that are very straight and frequent, yet are mostly ridden by transit-dependent riders and not choice riders.

I don't know about here, but the express and park-n-ride buses in Houston had plenty of choice riders. So did the short routes near town. Now painfully slow long bus routes (and streetcars) will get only transit dependent riders.

If you provide a financially and time competitive alternative, people will ride. If it takes them 3 times longer and costs as much, you get transit dependent only.

Now it would help if they didn't make the buses look so trashy with all the garish ambulance chaser ads. I wonder how much money that generates. Although, I must admit, the guy in the shades looking like an action hero with the exploding car in the background did have an entertaining ad. Houston actually did away with advertising in the 1990s to provide a cleaner look.

[MattCW]

What routes are straight and frequent?

[primaltech]

So put bus-only dedicated lanes everywhere in the city. Convert existing right-hand lanes to bus lanes, on any road or street with at least 4 total lanes. I'm 1000% in favor of doing that. But I don't live in the city, so that's y'all's business. Get on it.

While you're at it, give the buses traffic signal priority, decrease the total # of stops by at least 50%, improve the bus stops with shelters and lighting and digital signage, and straighten out and simplify the routes.

That's what I'm in favor of, in addition to simply adding a ton more buses to achieve frequent service levels/ coverage.

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by primaltech

So put bus-only dedicated lanes everywhere in the city. Convert existing right-hand lanes to bus lanes, on any road or street with at least 4 total lanes. I'm 1000% in favor of doing that. But I don't live in the city, so that's y'all's business. Get on it.

While you're at it, give the buses traffic signal priority, decrease the total # of stops by at least 50%, improve the bus stops with shelters and lighting and digital signage, and straighten out and simplify the routes.

That's what I'm in favor of, in addition to simply adding a ton more buses to achieve frequent service levels/ coverage.

many of the major arterial roads are maintained by GDOT and would need their approval first. They won't do this for Buford Hwy, which has extra capacity.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by cqholt

That's just smart zoning. Build denser, higher development within 1/2 mile of a transit station to encourage more usage.

Without the transit bonuses, however, developers would be limited to much smaller buildings.

It is because of transit bonuses that they are allowed to pack much larger (and more valuable) developments onto a parcel of land. Why shouldn't some of that increased value be captured to fund the transit that allows it?

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Without the transit bonuses, however, developers would be limited to much smaller buildings.

It is because of transit bonuses that they are allowed to pack much larger (and more valuable) developments onto a parcel of land. Why shouldn't some of that increased value be captured to fund the transit that allows it?

Creating a TAD or CID around stations to capture the increased property taxes and/or leverage additional taxes to fund improvements to the transit system? I guess the benefit is more riders, but having a TAD to help fund wouldn't be too bad.

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Without the transit bonuses, however, developers would be limited to much smaller buildings.

It is because of transit bonuses that they are allowed to pack much larger (and more valuable) developments onto a parcel of land. Why shouldn't some of that increased value be captured to fund the transit that allows it?

It is more like, because of how we've designed our roads and zoning laws around cars, that developers don't already build larger and more dense developments onto a parcel of land.

So, it's less of a value added and more of a value restore. Cars artificially lower the maximum practical density of a plot of land, where as transit supports what is closer to the real usefulness of that plot.

For that reason, I see more reason to penalize car-oriented development than to penalize transit-oriented development. If you want to fund transit, remove minimum parking requirements across the city (and the metro in general), and then penalize developers for building parking within a certain range of a transit station.



Besides, do you know for a fact that these developments reap more in personal profits than the city feels in external benefits? Do you have studies that say that? Do you have proof?

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by fourthwarden

Again, the problem isn't that existing stations won't get built up around. The problem is that they WILL get built up around IN ADDITION to continued expansion of the core of the city away from existing transit stations. It's that continued expansion, and all the surrounding growth that it in turn attracts, that the planned transit routes will serve.

Besides, to duplicate Midtown (3-4 stations), Buckhead (2-stations), and Perimeter (3-4 stations) 8 to 10 times on the existing system would require 64 to 100 stations on which to build. MARTA has 24 to 26 stations not already listed, with plans to add 3 as part of this expansion. That means that we'd need 38 to 74 NEW transit centers around which to develop.

It is simply not realistic to attempt to develop only as you suggest. We need to develop NEW high-capacity transit centers in addition to EXISTING ones.

We've already built a slew of high-capacity transit centers that are grossly under-utilized. Where are the plans for high-intensity development at Ashby, Oakland City, Hamilton Holmes, etc.? Oakland city didn't get ANY proposals for market rate housing when MARTA put it out for TOD.

Why is it "simply not realistic" to develop out the high capacity zones that have been sitting there waiting for 30+ years before embarking on a $6 billion plan to build even more such zones?

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by arjay57

We've already built a slew of high-capacity transit centers that are grossly under-utilized. Where are the plans for high-intensity development at Ashby, Oakland City, Hamilton Holmes, etc.? Oakland city didn't get ANY proposals for market rate housing when MARTA put it out for TOD.

Why is it "simply not realistic" to develop out the high capacity zones that have been sitting there waiting for 30+ years before embarking on a $6 billion plan to build even more such zones?

Where is the market for that development at those locations? Those locations are not seeing high-levels of private development in the area, unlike Edgewood/Candler Park, King Memorial, Arts Center, Chamblee, Avondale, Dunwoody, etc. Is it unfair that all of the TOD projects are focused on gentrifying, east and north side areas? Yes, but unless there is private developer willing to fund the TOD project, MARTA cannot force it.
Until recently, the idea of living near transit in metro Atlanta was not something that people are willing to pay a premium for, so there was little demand for TODs.