MARTA unveils its dream project list for November Referendum (Atlanta: apartment complexes, zoned)

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Right, but I'm assuming most transit users do not live in TODs.

Well, considering just how many people can't possibly live in TODs that's not terribly surprising. I mean, it'd be great, but not much of our 6 million person metro lives near high-capacity transit or in MARTA's TODs. It certainly doesn't help, though, to not build more TODs, and it certainly doesn't help to not build more high-capacity transit.

I'm thinking in part about the situation up in Brookhaven. As I understand it, the argument was, "Don't worry about more traffic with all these new apartments we're bringing in -- these folks will be taking MARTA."

The argument was that those people will be coming to the metro no matter what, and that it's better to offer them a place where they can more realistically take transit than to put them somewhere where they can't.


The argument was that will be traffic no matter what you do, but it's better for the metro to provide as much housing as possible around high-capacity transit because even a small percentage of trips on transit is better than no trips on transit.

[jsvh]

I still can't believe we are holding back development near transit over concerns about traffic. So backwards.

[MattCW]

Originally Posted by jsvh

I still can't believe we are holding back development near transit over concerns about traffic. So backwards.

How are legitimate concerns backwards?

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by MattCW

How are legitimate concerns backwards?

Because stopping people from living and working near transit means that they will be driving more and resulting in more traffic.

Just because you don't build a development doesn't mean those people just disappear.

[MattCW]

Originally Posted by jsvh

Because stopping people from living and working near transit means that they will be driving more and resulting in more traffic.

Just because you don't build a development doesn't mean those people just disappear.

Just because you do build it, doesn't mean all, or even most of them will use transit, which WILL result in more traffic. Even if 100% of them used transit, there would still be more traffic and most non-work destinations aren't reachable by transit.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by MattCW

Just because you do build it, doesn't mean all, or even most of them will use transit, which WILL result in more traffic. Even if 100% of them used transit, there would still be more traffic and most non-work destinations aren't reachable by transit.

No it would not. Again, that person does not disappear just because this project doesn't exist. It just means they go live somewhere else where they are more car dependant and drive more than if they lived connected to a transit station.

Now sure, not everyone living in a TOD is going to take transit 100% of the time, but it is certainly going to be a higher rate of transit usage than if they are forced to live further away from the station because the TOD was never built.

We got to stop limiting the supply of housing near transit. People want to live places where they have real transportation options.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by jsvh

I still can't believe we are holding back development near transit over concerns about traffic. So backwards.

The Dukakis Center study I linked to found that development near transit may bring more cars, not less.

"Rents go up as transit arrives (often along with new shops and restaurants) and more affluent people move in. And guess what? Those wealthier people tend to have more cars. That’s the fundamental paradox: the people who are attracted to transit-rich neighborhoods – and have the money to pay more to live there – don’t use transit as much as less affluent people who can get priced out."

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by jsvh

Now sure, not everyone living in a TOD is going to take transit 100% of the time, but it is certainly going to be a higher rate of transit usage than if they are forced to live further away from the station because the TOD was never built.

So one might think.

However, is there any evidence to back that notion up? As I recall, the stations with the highest ridership tend to be toward the end of the line where there is no TOD, suggesting that most riders commute to the stations from elsewhere.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by arjay57

So one might think.

However, is there any evidence to back that notion up? As I recall, the stations with the highest ridership tend to be toward the end of the line where there is no TOD, suggesting that most riders commute to the stations from elsewhere.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/154...ac7f10a812.pdf

If there is any single aspect of TOD that all sides agree is beneficial to society as a
whole, it is increased ridership (Bernick and Cervero, 1997; Calthorpe, 1993). TOD is
poised to relieve traffic congestion, improve air quality, cut down on tailpipe emissions,
and increase pedestrian safety in transit-served neighborhoods by coaxing travelers out
of cars and into trains and buses. However, such benefits accrue only if TODs result in
people who formerly drove alone now switching to transit. While some critics charge
that past rail investments in the US have largely lured former bus riders to rail,
experiences show that TOD can attract significant shares of former motorists. A
California study found that, among those who drove to work when they lived away
from transit, 52.3% switched to transit commuting upon moving within a half-mile
walking distance of a rail station (Cervero, 1993).

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by arjay57

The Dukakis Center study I linked to found that development near transit may bring more cars, not less.

So, build more housing to keep prices down. Not building the housing certainly doesn't help anything in the long run.

As Jsvh and I keep trying to explain, those people don't just not show up. Object permanence doesn't stop existing just because you didn't build TOD. We're going to get 2 million more people one way or the other. Yeah, sure, those wealthy people come live near transit, and they have cars, and they drive, BUT they also have far more access to transit as well.

The alternative is for the same number of people to take the same number of cars and just DRIVE MORE because they don't have as much access to transit.

We can't let hyper-micro issues kill improvements on a metro-wide scale.

Originally Posted by arjay57

So one might think.

However, is there any evidence to back that notion up? As I recall, the stations with the highest ridership tend to be toward the end of the line where there is no TOD, suggesting that most riders commute to the stations from elsewhere.

The top 5 stations are, in order of their 2013 ridership:

1. 5-Points
2. Airport
3. College Park
4. Lindbergh Center
5. Peachtree Center

Notice that College Park is the only real long-range commuter station there. Three are core stations surrounded by dense development, with the other one being the Airport.

H.E. Holmes is 8th highest, with North Springs close behind it and in 9th. Indian Creek is then in 12th place, with Doraville not too far away in ridership in 13th.

Yeah, the terminal stations are pretty high up there, but so are the core stations in Midtown and Downtown.


Again, just because you don't build the TOD, that doesn't mean those people don't show up. All you've done is push the problem elsewhere in the metro. Instead of giving people the option and opportunity to make a portion of their trips by transit, you're giving them little to no option.

I can't believe this has to be reiterated so many times but the solution to getting people to use transit more is not to stop development near stations. Density, and walkibility are necessary for transit to thrive. Yes it will bring more people, and their cars, but that's magnitudes better then making them live miles and miles and miles away from amenities and forcing them into a concentric lifestyle.

One way you at least given them options. The other you're just forcing them to be traffic no matter what.