BRT along the top end Perimeter (Atlanta, Dallas: real estate, how much, university)

[bu2]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Seems to me 12,000 people PER HOUR in each direction is way more than enough capacity. Assuming the route goes both ways, that's a total of 24,000 passengers an hour.

The Airport Station, for example -- second busiest station in the MARTA system -- only gets 11,000 passengers in an entire day. Midtown gets 5,500 per day.

In the unlikely event that it someday turns out that the BRT system can't meet capacity, then it will be time to look at a higher capacity system.

That's one of the points of the study I linked. Very few corridors in America need that type of capacity. The conclusion of that study is that BRT is better than LRT on every new corridor currently being studied in America.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by bu2

That's one of the points of the study I linked. Very few corridors in America need that type of capacity. The conclusion of that study is that BRT is better than LRT on every new corridor currently being studied in America.

Straight up wrong. BRT can be great, but it is not the solution to everything. It won't even fit many places where LRT can, like the Beltline.

[Need4Camaro]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Hey, I'm not the engineer! But it's hard for me to believe this isn't doable. If it's impossible, why are all these people beating their gums about it?

I personally am not anti-highway but...I-285 IS wide enough as is...Infact I-285 top-end is actually WIDER than most highways across the United States ... What it suffers from are bottle necks and busy interchanges, not capacity -- its ridiculously pointless to continue expanding it, it would horrifically ruin the landscape in that area and what little more they can squeeze out of it would be invane.

The elevated HOT lanes make me want to vomit, was any consideration to the landscape even thought about at all? I mean, imagine 2 massive gawdy bridges going over Riverside Dr near those mansions, I'm pretty sure those folks aren't going to be happy about that.

The lanes really need to be submerged if its just absolutely a must to build them...otherwise to me - the real investment needs to be in expanding MARTA rail as an alternative to driving.

Lastly, I'm pretty sure there's almost no way they can build those lanes without taking property, especially between GA-400 and Northside Dr.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by Need4Camaro

I personally am not anti-highway but...I-285 IS wide enough as is...Infact I-285 top-end is actually WIDER than most highways across the United States ... What it suffers from are bottle necks and busy interchanges, not capacity -- its ridiculously pointless to continue expanding it, it would horrifically ruin the landscape in that area and what little more they can squeeze out of it would be invane.

The elevated HOT lanes make me want to vomit, was any consideration to the landscape even thought about at all? I mean, imagine 2 massive gawdy bridges going over Riverside Dr near those mansions, I'm pretty sure those folks aren't going to be happy about that.

The lanes really need to be submerged if its just absolutely a must to build them...otherwise to me - the real investment needs to be in expanding MARTA rail as an alternative to driving.

Lastly, I'm pretty sure there's almost no way they can build those lanes without taking property, especially between GA-400 and Northside Dr.

It is absolutely a must to build them. We need to provide people alternatives. Rail is going to serve no more than 10% of that population and probably 3-4%. And adding extra general purpose lanes to top end 285 would have minimal impact on traffic. Once you get a certain number of lanes in a heavily travelled corridor, the left lane gets little use because people can't exit. 285 is at that point where more general purpose lanes make no sense.

[Need4Camaro]

Originally Posted by bu2

It is absolutely a must to build them. We need to provide people alternatives. Rail is going to serve no more than 10% of that population and probably 3-4%. And adding extra general purpose lanes to top end 285 would have minimal impact on traffic. Once you get a certain number of lanes in a heavily travelled corridor, the left lane gets little use because people can't exit. 285 is at that point where more general purpose lanes make no sense.

The real problem with I-285 is the lack of alternate corridors which force traffic to use it to bypass the metro or reach jobs on the top-end. Theres no other feasible routes. That and it's also the only feasible connector for trucks to connect to any other interstate in the state of Georgia.

See the thing is, Atlanta is at a point where its infeasible and impractical to expand more freeways and that is the only thing that would truly help I-285 by providing alternate routes (although those routes in their own right would also need zone controlling as to prevent those places from sprawling further). This project is $2 - $3 billion dollar bandaid, not a solution. Because it is infeasible (due to development, the political nature, and because to realize a highway system in Atlanta of which we fantasize would really solve traffic issues like seen in DFW or Houston would be impractical to pass within the political architecture of Atlanta.) Atlanta would be best off by providing an alternative to driving altogether. While the highways in Atlanta do seem kind of bare bones for a metro its size, a redundant rail system will given people a alternative to driving. If it starts taking people 2 - 3 hours to drive people will consider using the rail.

I'm not saying catering to cars is bad but it is true that we cant build enough highways to service the demand for automobiles and especially in a metro with severe political backlash against freeways. Given Atlanta's political environment, the best solution IS MARTA.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by bu2

Rail is going to serve no more than 10% of that population and probably 3-4%.

False.

The current 90% car trips we have is the ceiling, not the floor. No large metros (over 10 million) have 90% of people driving. In the largest metros (like Tokyo) a majority of people take transit (51% transit, 23% walk, 14% bike, 12% drive).

If Atlanta is going to continue to grow, we have to offer alternatives to driving. There is simply not enough room for lanes to serve 90% of people driving no matter how many billions are thrown at it.

[Need4Camaro]

Originally Posted by jsvh

False.

The current 90% car trips we have is the ceiling, not the floor. No large metros (over 10 million) have 90% of people driving. In the largest metros (like Tokyo) a majority of people take transit (51% transit, 23% walk, 14% bike, 12% drive).

If Atlanta is going to continue to grow, we have to offer alternatives to driving. There is simply not enough room for lanes to serve 90% of people driving no matter how many billions are thrown at it.

It should also be noted however that it is EXTREMELY expensive to both own a car and drive in Tokyo, over there, Driving is more-less a luxury.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by Need4Camaro

It should also be noted however that it is EXTREMELY expensive to both own a car and drive in Tokyo, over there, Driving is more-less a luxury.

It is expensive here too. All the subsidies we have reduce it some, but owning a car in Atlanta is not cheap. The poorest will never be able to get around by car even with the massive subsidies. Cars are just too expensive.

All the more reason why we need to design our metro where there are reasonable alternatives to getting around besides a car. Those subsides for cars should be going towards more accessible transportation options.

[Need4Camaro]

Originally Posted by jsvh

It is expensive here too. All the subsidies we have reduce it some, but owning a car in Atlanta is not cheap. The poorest will never be able to get around by car even with the massive subsidies. Cars are just too expensive.

All the more reason why we need to design our metro where there are reasonable alternatives to getting around besides a car. Those subsides for cars should be going towards more accessible transportation options.

Its tenfold more expensive in Tokyo, every highway there is tolled, parking ANYWHERE is $$$ where as in Atlanta you really only have to worry about that in the core. Top that with the average citizen making less than an American citizen and the cost of fuel being much higher there, it's easy to see why there is a much smaller percentage of drivers in Tokyo.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by Need4Camaro

Its tenfold more expensive in Tokyo, every highway there is tolled, parking ANYWHERE is $$$ where as in Atlanta you really only have to worry about that in the core. Top that with the average citizen making less than an American citizen and the cost of fuel being much higher there, it's easy to see why there is a much smaller percentage of drivers in Tokyo.

Originally Posted by jsvh

It is expensive here too. All the subsidies we have reduce it some, but owning a car in Atlanta is not cheap. The poorest will never be able to get around by car even with the massive subsidies. Cars are just too expensive.

All the more reason why we need to design our metro where there are reasonable alternatives to getting around besides a car. Those subsides for cars should be going towards more accessible transportation options.

Is there an echo in here?

Just because we subsidize driving more here over Tokyo, doesn't mean our current car-only city design is somehow sustainable as the metro continues to gain population.

Every large metro has a lower share of drivers than us. If Atlanta wants to continue to grow and be functional, it will have to follow that same trend.