Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
MARTA could have a train every 30 seconds, with leather recliner seats and breakfast served on the train. It still doesn't go anywhere near where I or most people live. (Or where they work, for that matter.)
We should have fixed that problem decades ago, but this bridge collapse just highlights the fact that we need a vastly expanded train system. I don't understand what we're waiting on or what the problem is.
Because it's going to cost an assload, take several decades, and people down south don't like the word "tax". You could tell them their wildest dreams will come true for a 2% raise on their income taxes, and they'd probably just stab you instead.
CBRE notes that its report is “far from scientific,” because results are based solely on a survey of company employees. However, the company employees more than 1,400 individuals in metro Atlanta, leading to the conclusion that, “It is possible that the trends uncovered in this internal survey have application beyond just CBRE to other companies in the Atlanta market.”
CBRE determined that 18 percent of its workforce was able to increase the frequency of telecommuting after the March 30 collapse of a stretch of I-85.
This increase compares to a near doubling of CBRE employees who ride MARTA – up to 9 percent from 5 percent. The report found that more employees would have taken MARTA if they felt they had “good access” to the system from their homes: “There is an appetite for additional mass transit use in Atlanta.”
After 85 reopened people went back to using that. People aren't going to pay to ride MARTA when we provide them with free highway options that we have been pushing them towards for decades.
The highways have nothing to do with MARTA ridership- except special emergency cases like the bridge outing.
Increasing MARTA ridership depends on 2 main factors- if it goes to where people are, and if so, does it go where they are trying to go. Therefore, the 2 primary ways to increase ridership are to expand the system to reach more people and more existing destinations, and to put more people and more destinations at the existing stations.
Best strategy, do both in combo. Extend the lines northward, with residential towers to go with the new stations, then build more skyscrapers full of good jobs right around and even directly on top of the existing in-town stations. Ridership would explode.
Has nothing to do with the roads, which are going to be there, and still needed, with or without a good transit system. And honestly, Georgia has neglected its highways almost as much as it's neglected transit.
The highways have nothing to do with MARTA ridership- except special emergency cases like the bridge outing.
I am curious what do you think would have happened to MARTA ridership if this "special emergency case bridge outing" was a permanent thing? What if we permanently closed all highways into the city overnight? Now, there would certainly be negative effects of such a closure to discuss, but surely you can agree that MARTA would see a large boost in ridership and thus highway most certainly do have an effect of transit ridership.
Quote:
Originally Posted by primaltech
Increasing MARTA ridership depends on 2 main factors- if it goes to where people are, and if so, does it go where they are trying to go. Therefore, the 2 primary ways to increase ridership are to expand the system to reach more people and more existing destinations, and to put more people and more destinations at the existing stations.
Best strategy, do both in combo. Extend the lines northward, with residential towers to go with the new stations, then build more skyscrapers full of good jobs right around and even directly on top of the existing in-town stations. Ridership would explode.
Agree those are good things that also benefit ridership and thankfully are largely happening.
Quote:
Originally Posted by primaltech
And honestly, Georgia has neglected its highways almost as much as it's neglected transit.
Please elaborate. Atlanta has one of the highest highway-lane-miles per capita in the world.
After 85 reopened people went back to using that. People aren't going to pay to ride MARTA when we provide them with free highway options that we have been pushing them towards for decades.
If they are sitting on those highways for an hour each way every day, they damn well might choose the transit option, IF transit runs to enough areas to make enough people want to change. As it stands, Marta rails has over a quarter million riders per day, and it's reach is very limited. Many more people would use it if it covered more area. The few dollars a day would probably not be enough of a deterrent to those people annoyed by standstill traffic. You're suggestion that everyone just move is not a likely result.
I am curious what do you think would have happened to MARTA ridership if this "special emergency case bridge outing" was a permanent thing? What if we permanently closed all highways into the city overnight? Now, there would certainly be negative effects of such a closure to discuss, but surely you can agree that MARTA would see a large boost in ridership and thus highway most certainly do have an effect of transit ridership.
By and large, I think people would clog all the surface roads with their vehicles. And that's precisely the other thing that happened when the bridge went out.
Especially when you consider, I-85 was a relatively special case, where there is a MARTA line sort of along it. If I-75 collapsed at Collier Rd, it's a totally different story. You can't take a train from Smyrna to Midtown, either way. The freeway's width or even its existence or not, has zero effect.
Actually, ironically, if I-75 was out, transit use probably would actually decrease. Because the only transit along the corridor is via buses on I-75.
If the point you're getting at is, "we should shut down the roads to force them to build trains faster", then the answer is 100% no, we should most definitely not do that. We should keep the freeway system intact and maintain it, and allow the increasing traffic to continue to pressure leaders into action. That's in everyone's best interest, including the city's.
Whether or not the freeway system through the middle of the city was ultimately good for Atlanta or not (I'd argue that it was), it's there, and that's that. Nothing can or should be done about that now, except make the best of it. Cap it and build parks on top of it to hide the thing, and just generally try to beautify and minimize the impact of it on the urban part of the city.
Quote:
Please elaborate. Atlanta has one of the highest highway-lane-miles per capita in the world.
I have no idea about that stat, or where you're getting it, or how exactly you're defining that. But growing all my life in the Metro Atlanta area, I think they built one whole new freeway, which was the 400 extension ITP when I was a kid, which I don't even remember. What's always been obvious is the lack of them.
And like we were saying in the other thread, it's the lack of alternative freeways that's really what causes the total chaos when one bridge goes out. From a highway commuter standpoint, we are far too reliant on I-85, which in turn also caused I-85 to become too widened.
While obviously you can't have traffic if there are no roads, at the same time, if you neglect having enough roads in a growing metro, traffic will inevitably clog up on the few existing arteries that we do have.
And then our not having enough transit, gives most people few options but to sit in that congestion. So it's neglect in both areas that's causing mobility problems in our metro.
Sorting out our transportation problems however, should not be an exercise in bitterness towards the car. Let the car and the highways be a positive part of the total solution. Especially given that AV's will eventually make all of that better, and a gradual transition to electric cars should eventually lessen air quality impact, as long as it's paired with non-fossil fuel power plants.
If they are sitting on those highways for an hour each way every day, they damn well might choose the transit option, IF transit runs to enough areas to make enough people want to change. As it stands, Marta rails has over a quarter million riders per day, and it's reach is very limited. Many more people would use it if it covered more area. The few dollars a day would probably not be enough of a deterrent to those people annoyed by standstill traffic. You're suggestion that everyone just move is not a likely result.
Sure we need some commuter rail lanes but our low-density suburbs will never make sense to get transit coverage much beyond that. MARTA already covers an end-to-end the same area as NYC's subway. But as this closure shows, closing even just one 800 ft section of highway will get you double digit percentages of increases in MARTA ridership. So our existing transit coverage already reaches way more people than use it normally. It is just we have put even more money into providing and encouraging them to use highways instead. And that jump is without anyone moving since it was just a temporary closure.
By and large, I think people would clog all the surface roads with their vehicles. And that's precisely the other thing that happened when the bridge went out.
But that already happens and continues to slowly degrade anyways. And it was not all bad news, many intown areas saw significant improvements in traffic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by primaltech
If the point you're getting at is, "we should shut down the roads to force them to build trains faster", then the answer is 100% no, we should most definitely not do that. We should keep the freeway system intact and maintain it, and allow the increasing traffic to continue to pressure leaders into action. That's in everyone's best interest, including the city's.
Whether or not the freeway system through the middle of the city was ultimately good for Atlanta or not (I'd argue that it was), it's there, and that's that. Nothing can or should be done about that now, except make the best of it. Cap it and build parks on top of it to hide the thing, and just generally try to beautify and minimize the impact of it on the urban part of the city.
I agree closing all the highways ITP overnight is no where near politically feasible, and even if it was the suddenness of it would have a negative "shock" effect. But that still doesn't change the reality that less can be more with freeways. I think reducing the number of lanes and more importantly adding tolls is politically feasible in the coming decades and will have a strong positive effect if implemented.
Quote:
Originally Posted by primaltech
I have no idea about that stat, or where you're getting it, or how exactly you're defining that. But growing all my life in the Metro Atlanta area, I think they built one whole new freeway, which was the 400 extension ITP when I was a kid, which I don't even remember. What's always been obvious is the lack of them.
And like we were saying in the other thread, it's the lack of alternative freeways that's really what causes the total chaos when one bridge goes out. From a highway commuter standpoint, we are far too reliant on I-85, which in turn also caused I-85 to become too widened.
While obviously you can't have traffic if there are no roads, at the same time, if you neglect having enough roads in a growing metro, traffic will inevitably clog up on the few existing arteries that we do have.
And then our not having enough transit, gives most people few options but to sit in that congestion. So it's neglect in both areas that's causing mobility problems in our metro.
Sorting out our transportation problems however, should not be an exercise in bitterness towards the car. Let the car and the highways be a positive part of the total solution. Especially given that AV's will eventually make all of that better, and a gradual transition to electric cars should eventually lessen air quality impact, as long as it's paired with non-fossil fuel power plants.
It is not "bitterness", just practicality. There is really not the demand out there for our giant highways. All we need to do is up in place tolls to cover the full cost of the highways. In most cases not enough people will be willing to pay those tolls to need our giant freeways so we can remove the unneeded lanes to save on costs. It is not a "punishment", just getting people to directly consider the costs of their transportation choices. Many will choose the more affordable transit which will in turn fund more transit expansions and cause more people to live near transit.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
