The ATL: new regional transit system (Atlanta, Dunwoody: new home, air quality, electricity)

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by architect77

We have already given up one northbound lane which ruined my ability to drive from downtown to LA Fitness beside Disco Kroger in 20 minutes at 5:30 pm.

All of the claim about moving more people on light rail than cars in the space of an existing lane.

Light Rail is slow as all get out, and the only way to it could move more people than one lane for cars is if the the light rail was a continuous string of cars.

Yes, that route is a great candidate for rapid transit, but beside the existing road, not taking over an existing lane.

We need to start thinking outside of the box. With all of the plastic that the packing industry isn't interested in recycling & keeps making more and more despite the garbage patches in several oceans..

Why couldn't light rail or subway cars or a gondola cars be completely made of plastic?

Just put some AC in them and they'd be lightweight and inexpensive to manufacture/replace.

OR HOW ABOUT A MOVING SIDEWALK UP PEACHTREE using the same techanology as Cable Cars in SF?

A cable underground could constantly be moving and whatever could grab hold of it and travel up to Buckhead.

Originally Posted by brown_dog_us

Totally agree. I was talking about if it's not moving more people than the car lane it replaced. The risk of job loss causes the city to be scared of big moves that might not work out. Atlanta should take the route you described and convert a lane to bus only for a trial period. If it moves more people then keep it. If not remove the plastic bollards and return it to a congested car lane.

Originally Posted by primaltech

The Peachtree corridor between Brookhaven and Arts Center, is not served well by cars and a regular bus. It needs to be 2 lanes either direction for cars, and a light rail system with key stops. Or at least a BRT/trolley type system in its own lanes.

All those condo high rises and office high rises, and all the restaurants and destinations on that line, and that would be one heck of a high ridership LRT.

Better user experience than sitting in gridlock.

With minimal ROW acquisition, 2 lanes each direction with center turn lane, dedicated transit lanes and sidewalk could be accomplished.

built using ReStreet App

[cqholt]

CobbLinc Transit Survey
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/CobbLincTransitSurvey

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by cqholt

With minimal ROW acquisition, 2 lanes each direction with center turn lane, dedicated transit lanes and sidewalk could be accomplished.

built using ReStreet App

cq, I like the general idea but 4 1/2 feet for sidewalks and a tree zone is extremely tight. Also, there are no bike lanes.

If I'm not mistaken, the SPI requirements in both Midtown and Buckhead call for a minimum 15' clear zone for sidewalks plus the 5' supplemental zone.

How about something like this?

[autolycus25]

Originally Posted by arjay57

cq, I like the general idea but 4 1/2 feet for sidewalks and a tree zone is extremely tight. Also, there are no bike lanes.

If I'm not mistaken, the SPI requirements in both Midtown and Buckhead call for a minimum 15' clear zone for sidewalks plus the 5' supplemental zone.

How about something like this?

OK, I could be completely wrong about this, so please correct me nicely if I am, but...

I think that SPI-12 requirement is for new construction or substantial renovations. The 15'+5' requirements are really setbacks from the existing 6-lanes along Peachtree--it's actually up to 8 lanes at the South side of the Piedmont intersection. But my point is that those don't eat into the current 6-lane footprint*. Those eat into the space that a developer has for their building. You could take the 6 lanes and knock out 3, giving you a middle turn lane and 2 lanes for transit easily. That still leaves 2 primary lanes each way. Doesn't get you a bike track though...


*Does anybody know the current lane width? I'm guessing 10', but maybe not?

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by arjay57

cq, I like the general idea but 4 1/2 feet for sidewalks and a tree zone is extremely tight. Also, there are no bike lanes.

If I'm not mistaken, the SPI requirements in both Midtown and Buckhead call for a minimum 15' clear zone for sidewalks plus the 5' supplemental zone.

How about something like this?

Understanding that Peachtree is a state roadway and a freight route, I was trying to maintain the 2+1+2 general lane setup, adding ddedicated transit lanes, and still provide street trees. This plan fits in the existing 80' ROW. As I suggested earlier, minimal ROW can be required to widen sidewalks, add barriers, etc.
As to the bike lane comment, I'll take dedicated transit lanes over bike lanes for this corridor.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by cqholt

Understanding that Peachtree is a state roadway and a freight route, I was trying to maintain the 2+1+2 general lane setup, adding ddedicated transit lanes, and still provide street trees. This plan fits in the existing 80' ROW. As I suggested earlier, minimal ROW can be required to widen sidewalks, add barriers, etc.
As to the bike lane comment, I'll take dedicated transit lanes over bike lanes for this corridor.

Okay, I gotcha.

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by bu2

You are assuming people use them. In the Atlanta area about 7% of people telecommute and only 4% use mass transit. Many of those 4% use buses which require streets. So you've got close to 90% who drive alone or car/van pool and need those lanes. You can't design for less than 4% and ignore 89+%. There is no doubt that if Atlanta grows, the number of drivers will grow. You will not get ALL new residents to use transit.

You're assuming that the current mode share will me maintained, despite the very lack of transit being a major reason for that abysmal mode share in the first place. Of the ten core metro counties that the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) gathered data for, only 55% of jobs and 31% of residents were within a half mile of any form of transit in 2014. Transit here means any form of public transit, including commuter buses, once-hour local bus routes, streetcars, and heavy rail. The coverage by high-capacity transit is significantly worse.

You know what really doesn't get people into transit? Not having transit in the first place. No, not everyone will use the train, or the buses that can also make use of the transit lanes, which is why I've suggested to keep road space left for drivers.

Reducing road capacity simply means people and jobs will go elsewhere. Atlanta already loses on relocation because of its traffic. Making traffic worse does not improve the situation.

You'd be able to fill every new vacancy with someone ready and willing to live in a highly transit connected location. People working in the transit connected job nodes, and along the corridor itself could live fairly easily without a car. Transit is an asset, after all, attracting businesses and residents.

Traffic will likely get better through the corridor. If not on Peachtree itself, then around it since fewer people would be driving to and from it.

Road capacity as a whole, though, will increase since the transit lanes can carry many times as many people as if it were left for cars.

You need alternatives without harming the vast majority of residents.

There were approximately 27,700 miles of roadway within the Atlanta metro in 2012. By contrast, there are 575 miles of dedicated bike facilities, 2 miles of bus only lanes, and roughly 50 miles of rail transit in the metro.

You want to know why the vast majority of people use roads? Because 97.7% of our centerline transportation is dedicated to cars. Heck, if you actually counted lane-equivalent space dedicated to cars, then it'd likely be more like 99%.

But yes, adding 4 whole miles of dedicated transit lanes will somehow completely tip the network away from it's current, not at all hyper-prioritized for cars, balance.

Originally Posted by samiwas1

But the problem is that the light rail would need to cover the geographical origins and destinations of all those people in a reasonable time. Simply removing a lane and throwing a rail on it is not fixing any problems unless it actually serves the mobility needs of potential users. The streetcar and bike lanes prove this. It's a great option, but they are sparsely used as opposed to the lanes they replaced. (and yes, I'm aware that the streetcar didn't replace lanes).

Until you have a vast network of rail serving many areas of the city, simply replacing a single corridor will not solve any issues, and will likely create more.

So, we shouldn't implement a section of that network, because that network doesn't yet exist? You'll never get anything in place with that mentality. Why build any new transit if we don't already have a vast network?

Ignore, of course, that the corridor meets the wider MARTA heavy rail network at both ends, and is, itself, part of the wider streetcar & light rail system.

Besides, we don't have to provide service for every person who once drove in that lane. Some drivers will find alternative routes. Some will make fewer trips. Some will transition to transit, and be joined by new transit riders all together.

People will move, change jobs, adjust schedules, and change habits, but it will all work out in the end, and there will be higher-capacity in the corridor than there was.

Originally Posted by brown_dog_us

Totally agree. I was talking about if it's not moving more people than the car lane it replaced. The risk of job loss causes the city to be scared of big moves that might not work out. Atlanta should take the route you described and convert a lane to bus only for a trial period. If it moves more people then keep it. If not remove the plastic bollards and return it to a congested car lane.

Simply converting a bus only lane, without the myriad of other corridor improvements (improved stops, permanent right of way, signal prioritization) will mean you only get a part of the picture. Certainly you won't get to see the long term, attractive effects of permanent high-capacity transit.

[bu2]

You are delusional if you think the vast majority of people use cars because there are more roads.

Transit use has been declining nationwide. People use cars because they are convenient. You aren't tied to a bus or train schedule. You can go and come whenever. If you need to leave in the middle of the day to go to the dentist or to get your sick kid, you can. If you need to work late, you can without having a long wait for a bus or train. You can work until 1 without having to worry about finding a way home. Non-peak, transit is simply not competitive on time. And you can never build enough transit to make it as convenient as a car.

Pretty much everywhere when transit loses riders its mostly because their riders bought a car.

The only places where transit dominates is where it is ultra dense. And no city in America will be able to build a subway system to the extent New York City has. They built theirs over 100 years ago when labor was cheap.

If we have a city (other than New York) where transit dominates, its because people have more time than money and that is not a good thing.

[primaltech]

Originally Posted by bu2

You are delusional if you think the vast majority of people use cars because there are more roads.

Transit use has been declining nationwide. People use cars because they are convenient. You aren't tied to a bus or train schedule. You can go and come whenever. If you need to leave in the middle of the day to go to the dentist or to get your sick kid, you can. If you need to work late, you can without having a long wait for a bus or train. You can work until 1 without having to worry about finding a way home. Non-peak, transit is simply not competitive on time. And you can never build enough transit to make it as convenient as a car.

Pretty much everywhere when transit loses riders its mostly because their riders bought a car.

The only places where transit dominates is where it is ultra dense. And no city in America will be able to build a subway system to the extent New York City has. They built theirs over 100 years ago when labor was cheap.

If we have a city (other than New York) where transit dominates, its because people have more time than money and that is not a good thing.

Yeah, but we’re better off with transit in place, than without it. For a lot of reasons.

It’s all part of a big connectivity system.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by primaltech

Yeah, but we’re better off with transit in place, than without it. For a lot of reasons.

It’s all part of a big connectivity system.

Absolutely. We need to do better with both. And it will cost money.