MARTA ridership down since I-85 reopened (Atlanta, Commerce: transport, land, rating)

[Gulch]

Originally Posted by cqholt

Sounds like you are describing our road system.

People forget that the internal-combustion engine was invented in the same century as the locomotive.

[whodean]

Originally Posted by Gulch

Every poster on this board will be dead by that point.

[whodean]

Originally Posted by cqholt

Sounds like you are describing our road system.

I am! Both roads and transit are ripe for innovation with a hybrid system. More efficient, more comfortable. The only thing that can hold it back is the entrenched system (paid off politicians primarily)

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by Gulch

People forget that the internal-combustion engine was invented in the same century as the locomotive.

My grandpa grew up in the horse and buggy era and lived to see men walking on the moon.

[bu2]

http://demographia.com/db-cbd2000.pdf
This is some data on Central Business Districts from 2010.

Atlanta is 15th in % of transit riders at 14.2%. Note that is ONLY the CBD. The top 8 are old cities in the NE, Midwest or on the West coast. There are only 11 cities with ridership higher than 20%, with LA #11 at 22.5%. Portland is #10 at 27.0%. As Atlanta will not go to the extreme measures Portland has on restricting development, it seems unrealistic to expect Atlanta to get near that percentage. Even with MARTA, Atlanta is barely ahead of DFW (14.0%), Cincinnati (13.3%) and Houston (13.1%).

Only 5 cities exceed 10% across the metro.

[AUGnative]

Atlanta is just not pedestrian friendly and does not have enough density support the comprehensive mass transit you see in a lof the northern older cities. There is really no street pattern to Atlanta.. it just sort of evolved organically.. even the intown areas are fairly low density. You need very high density within 1/2 mile radius of transit stations to make it viable.

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by bu2

http://demographia.com/db-cbd2000.pdf
This is some data on Central Business Districts from 2010.

Atlanta is 15th in % of transit riders at 14.2%. Note that is ONLY the CBD. The top 8 are old cities in the NE, Midwest or on the West coast. There are only 11 cities with ridership higher than 20%, with LA #11 at 22.5%. Portland is #10 at 27.0%. As Atlanta will not go to the extreme measures Portland has on restricting development, it seems unrealistic to expect Atlanta to get near that percentage. Even with MARTA, Atlanta is barely ahead of DFW (14.0%), Cincinnati (13.3%) and Houston (13.1%).

Only 5 cities exceed 10% across the metro.

It would certainly help if more than only 31% of the 10-county metro (even less for the full MSA) residents were within a half mile of any form of transit.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by AUGnative

Atlanta is just not pedestrian friendly and does not have enough density support the comprehensive mass transit you see in a lof the northern older cities. There is really no street pattern to Atlanta.. it just sort of evolved organically.. even the intown areas are fairly low density. You need very high density within 1/2 mile radius of transit stations to make it viable.

Right, legalizing density and pedestrian improvements are even more important than transit expansion. That said, government investment in transit should still come before investment in highways.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by flamadiddle

As kids, we were told we'd have this by around 2020. Looks like we're not going to make it.

Ha!

By the way, this is what the Chamber of Commerce thought in 1910 that downtown Atlanta would look like in 2010.


Atlanta History Center FROM THE ARCHIVES - View of Peachtree Street in 2010

[MattCW]

I want my lighter than air Galley!

[EDIT]
Actually...there's something to be said for that. Automated lanes of airships operating like personal rapid transit between major points. Even at a relatively sedate 30knots, on a direct route without stops, they'd be decently fast time-wise. No idea the volume of helium required for a 4-passenger cabin though, they could be too big to be practical.