The Vibrancy Problem (Atlanta, Buford, Dallas: dangerous, groceries, shoppers)

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by samiwas1

I feel like this post deserves an award of some sort. You managed to use "urban fabric" non-ironically not once, but twice.

I feel like I know what the urban fabric is but I would be hard pressed to say it in 10 words or less.

[2Easy]

Originally Posted by architect77

Expansion at the metro's periphery will continue, but it won't be full of daily commuters to downtown. It will be driven by proximity to a major metro full of resources in an otherwise under-performing rural region offering even less than in other parts of the country.

Once you're at about 60 miles out from the downtown core, daily commuting isn't seen as being realistic.

Those people will navigate neighboring areas to conduct daily life, but not travel 100 miles every day under normal circumstances.

Atlanta is "full of freeways?"

You mean the same hub and spoke layout that remains unchanged from the 1960's?

Our freeways were suited for a population of 2.5- to 3 million, not 6-8 million.

I guarantee that, per capita, Atlanta has one of the least amount of lane-miles per person.

I’m not suggesting that everyone will commute downtown. The opposite really. As the urban area continues to expand distances between random points within that area will get farther and farther apart. That doesn’t necessarily mean that commutes lengths will increase but given the low density I think that’s very likely.

And Atlanta has the 6th highest amount of freeway lanes in the country on a per capita basis. Highway & Motorway Fact Book: Index

People never cite the HUGE REASON behind settling in far-flung suburbs and that is the horrible public schools in so many parts of stair & 2nd level deck/landing to access units above.

I agree. Now imagine that the urban area keeps expanding. And as it grows places that used to be nice and have good school deteriorate and schools become bad. Then the jobs leave. Then you have a super large area with jobs separated by large distances. Once the limit is reached in how far out people are willing to go, the area will be in decline.

[2Easy]

Originally Posted by samiwas1

I don't think a reduction of 50% in commute lengths would take 50% of the cars off the road. Not even close. My commute is 14 miles. If it were reduced by 50%, 75%, even 90% (1.4 miles), I would probably still be driving. The problem isn't really the lack of high density, it's the lack of alternate ways. Atlanta could stand to upgrade its transit network a lot. For a city of its size, it has very little to offer in the transit department, outside of a small plus sign of rail and a bus map that looks like a silly-string attack.

Atlanta does have a lot of space for building large, dense areas which could house a lot of people. But, be careful...you'll essentially called discriminatory for suggesting it.

Oops. My meaning definitely wasn’t clear. What I meant was the relative amount of cars. Let me give an example. 10 people with an average round trip commute of 50 miles travel a total of 500 miles each day. If they all found jobs closer to work so that they had 25 mile round trip commutes they’d only travel 250 miles total each day. Now they’d all be driving their cars each day, but the amount of traffic (or cars) on any given road is cut in half.

Atlanta commuters travel farther than commuters in other major cities. About 50% farther than cities like LA and NYC. If people in Atlanta lived closer to work you’d see an almost proportional reduction in traffic.

[Stormhammer]

Originally Posted by 2Easy

If people in Atlanta lived closer to work you’d see an almost proportional reduction in traffic.

But far too often you have two working parent families where one parent may work in Atlanta, and the other more local - and then kids educational settings come into play as well - and maybe some people want more yards vs urban living, etc.

Don't get me wrong, I totally support being closer to work, I live 4 miles from my job.

A friend has 4 kids, his wife works at GCPS, so he's about to move from Buford to Jefferson ( 3 kids, 4th one is in the oven technically ) just for space since his girls are coming of age where they each need their own bedroom. For him, it's far cheaper to buy there than it is to be closer.

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Remember when great trains like the Nancy Hanks would come barreling into Terminal Station?

Man, oh, man, was the ATL a railroad town in those days.


https://i.pinimg.com/originals/16/43...08c2cd3f85.jpg

[bu2]

Originally Posted by 2Easy

I’m not suggesting that everyone will commute downtown. The opposite really. As the urban area continues to expand distances between random points within that area will get farther and farther apart. That doesn’t necessarily mean that commutes lengths will increase but given the low density I think that’s very likely.

And Atlanta has the 6th highest amount of freeway lanes in the country on a per capita basis. Highway & Motorway Fact Book: Index



I agree. Now imagine that the urban area keeps expanding. And as it grows places that used to be nice and have good school deteriorate and schools become bad. Then the jobs leave. Then you have a super large area with jobs separated by large distances. Once the limit is reached in how far out people are willing to go, the area will be in decline.

1999 data is worse than useless. That's 18 years ago. Atlanta quit building about 1994-1995 and the population was growing like crazy.

[bu2]

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinfor.../2013/hm72.cfm

This is a 2014 table, but its hard to tell what it is measuring. Urban area? Its clearly not the MSA. It shows Atlanta with 3.5 million people in 3,649 square miles. MSA population is about 5.5 million. Also shows Houston with 3.8 million in only 1,824 square miles when their MSA is 6.5 million. It shows Atlanta with 959 people per square mile when the other urbanized area reports I have seen show 1,706 per square mile.

It shows Atlanta comparable to Philly, DC, Chicago and Boston in lane miles, but behind NY, LA, Houston and DFW. But again, its not clear what is being measured.

[J2rescue]

Originally Posted by bu2

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinfor.../2013/hm72.cfm

This is a 2014 table, but its hard to tell what it is measuring. Urban area? Its clearly not the MSA. It shows Atlanta with 3.5 million people in 3,649 square miles. MSA population is about 5.5 million. Also shows Houston with 3.8 million in only 1,824 square miles when their MSA is 6.5 million. It shows Atlanta with 959 people per square mile when the other urbanized area reports I have seen show 1,706 per square mile.

It shows Atlanta comparable to Philly, DC, Chicago and Boston in lane miles, but behind NY, LA, Houston and DFW. But again, its not clear what is being measured.

The column with 'MILES OF ROADWAY PER 1,000 PERSONS' shows that Atlanta has among the highest at 7.2. The only cities with more are Raleigh - 8.0, Tulsa - 7.8, and Nashville 7.6.

[waronxmas]

Originally Posted by bu2

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinfor.../2013/hm72.cfm

This is a 2014 table, but its hard to tell what it is measuring. Urban area? Its clearly not the MSA. It shows Atlanta with 3.5 million people in 3,649 square miles. MSA population is about 5.5 million. Also shows Houston with 3.8 million in only 1,824 square miles when their MSA is 6.5 million. It shows Atlanta with 959 people per square mile when the other urbanized area reports I have seen show 1,706 per square mile.

It shows Atlanta comparable to Philly, DC, Chicago and Boston in lane miles, but behind NY, LA, Houston and DFW. But again, its not clear what is being measured.

Originally Posted by J2rescue

The column with 'MILES OF ROADWAY PER 1,000 PERSONS' shows that Atlanta has among the highest at 7.2. The only cities with more are Raleigh - 8.0, Tulsa - 7.8, and Nashville 7.6.

I would take data points on this subject in regards to what it means to the metro with a grain of salt. The highway system we have is designed with an entirely difference purpose in mind (interstate connectivity) than what cities like Houston, Dallas, or Los Angeles (intrametro connectivity) built. This wasn't even a miscue on the part of metro leaders, but the desire of metro residents since the late 60s to not want to build multiple layers of highways through our living areas.

This is why there is such a disparity in the numbers from miles per capita to the density of the urban area. It isn't that a place Houston is more significantly built in a dense way that Atlanta, it's just that is configured in a more even layout than our crazy spider web of enclaves that straddle the highways meant to serve the southeast.

[atler8]

Originally Posted by waronxmas

I would take data points on this subject in regards to what it means to the metro with a grain of salt. The highway system we have is designed with an entirely difference purpose in mind (interstate connectivity) than what cities like Houston, Dallas, or Los Angeles (intrametro connectivity) built. This wasn't even a miscue on the part of metro leaders, but the desire of metro residents since the late 60s to not want to build multiple layers of highways through our living areas.

This is why there is such a disparity in the numbers from miles per capita to the density of the urban area. It isn't that a place Houston is more significantly built in a dense way that Atlanta, it's just that is configured in a more even layout than our crazy spider web of enclaves that straddle the highways meant to serve the southeast.

Very well said!
Your specific reference to "interstate connectivity" vs. "intrametro connectivity" points out a fact & a problem that a lot of people don't recognize much less understand.