Atlanta Beltline - Page 25

atl2phx · #**481** Posted **Jul 24, 2009, 11:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WestsideATL

Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm totally pro-parks and trails for the BeltLine. I think those elements can and should happen sooner rather than later. If the Silver Comet trail can entice people to live in Powder Springs or Rockmart, imagine what the BeltLine could do for intown! I just don't think the transit element is worth it at this point and we should be concentrating our efforts elsewhere.

westsideATL, what your'e suggesting is EXACTLY what is happening for the short term.

the parks, paths, arboretum and brownfield cleanup elements are taking place PRIOR to the transit portion. in fact most, there is significant progress in implementing these TODAY.

other than the timing issue, it's difficult for me understand why people would suggest the transit portion doesn't make sense. atlanta is one of the fastest growing cities in the country (CITY and metro) and there is a desperate need for transportation alternatives, the beltline is an exellent transportionion alternative that will reshape central atlanta AND provide a alternative transit option. take the beltline tour and you'll see how disconnected central atlanta really is. i think the fact that the implementation timeline is extended only reflects the interests of the city and beltline.org to get it right and provide the best possible and high quality end result.

when people suggest leaving the transit portion for later, well, that's part of the plan. but when people suggest leaving the transit portion out indefinitely, i would suggest these are the folks that don't really understand the long term vision of the beltline:

in addition to the added parks, greenspace and arboretum, the beltline will:

1 - take advantage of existing infrastructure (lowering implementation costs)
2 - connect MAJOR points of interest in the city (i.e. parks, neighborhoods, expanding/emerging employment centers, educational and tourist destinations and MARTA.
3 - stimulate residential development in areas of the city that have been underutilized and disinvested since the 1950's.
4 - stimulate commercial development in areas of the city that have been underutilized and disinvested since the 1950's.
5 - provide a transportation alternative to the auto from getting to and from many points in atlanta including those accesssed by MARTA rail.

smArTaLlone · #**482** Posted **Jul 24, 2009, 1:20 PM**

Thats the problem when people ignore numbers 3 and 4 and just look at the Beltline only as a transit project. If you could install transit tomorrow with the existing conditions it probably wouldn't make a lot sense, at least for the entire route, and thats also why I think the longer term outlook for transit is appropriate.

L41A · #**483** Posted **Jul 24, 2009, 9:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WestsideATL

But I have to ask, would that really be a bad thing? I live ITP, and IMO the region would be better off spending its time and money developing light rail up to Cobb and Gwinnett (or the Clifton Corridor) where people actually travel. The transit component of the BeltLine feels to me more like a pipedream than a viable project. The vision is great and it's captured everyone's imaginations but unfortunately it's distracting everyone from pursuing the projects we really need.

And I just have to ask -- what really is the pipe dream here?

I agree that having diligent patience with the transit component of the Beltline may not be a bad thing.

However, you suggest developing light rail up to Cobb and Gwinnett as a more viable project. But the general consensus of the residents in those counties is that they don’t want rail transit connection to the city of Atlanta. In addition, there is no existing infrastructure for light rail transit to Cobb and Gwinnett like with the Beltline. I agree that alternative and more mass transit would be beneficial for the region including Cobb and Gwinnett. But until there is a movement in Cobb and Gwinnett by the politicians and the residents who elect them to push for mass transit there (like there is with the Beltline in Atlanta), I conclude that the Beltline is the more viable project.

Oh, I’ve got the answer to my question - light rail in Cobb and Gwinnett via Atlanta is more like a pipe dream than the Beltline.

atl2phx · #**484** Posted **Jul 24, 2009, 9:19 PM**

check this out......here's a great video illustrating atlanta's beltline concept focusing on and including a flythrough of the beltline's NORTHEAST CORRIDOR (one of five corridors that make up the 22 mile beltline):

• Video Link

WestsideATL · #**485** Posted **Jul 24, 2009, 9:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by L41A

And I just have to ask -- what really is the pipe dream here?

I agree that having diligent patience with the transit component of the Beltline may not be a bad thing.

However, you suggest developing light rail up to Cobb and Gwinnett as a more viable project. But the general consensus of the residents in those counties is that they don’t want rail transit connection to the city of Atlanta. In addition, there is no existing infrastructure for light rail transit to Cobb and Gwinnett like with the Beltline. I agree that alternative and more mass transit would be beneficial for the region including Cobb and Gwinnett. But until there is a movement in Cobb and Gwinnett by the politicians and the residents who elect them to push for mass transit there (like there is with the Beltline in Atlanta), I conclude that the Beltline is the more viable project.

Oh, I’ve got the answer to my question - light rail in Cobb and Gwinnett via Atlanta is more like a pipe dream than the Beltline.

Sigh. My point is that those projects actually go where people are already going. That in and of itself instantly makes them more viable than the BeltLine. The BeltLine's transit component is a project in search of a transit market. Even though there may be more political will to make that happen (which I don't necessarily agree with - Sam Olens has a serious LRT-to-Cobb County agenda and the Gwinnett CIDs are doing a LRT study as we speak), that doesn't mean its a better project.

The existing "infrastructure" for the BeltLine comment is incorrect. The only thing that's intact is the right-of-way (except in the NW). Everything else, from the foundation and track to the bridges, would need to be reconstructed to accommodate streetcar/light rail.

atl2phx · #**486** Posted **Jul 24, 2009, 10:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WestsideATL

Sigh. My point is that those projects actually go where people are already going. That in and of itself instantly makes them more viable than the BeltLine. The BeltLine's transit component is a project in search of a transit market. Even though there may be more political will to make that happen (which I don't necessarily agree with - Sam Olens has a serious LRT-to-Cobb County agenda and the Gwinnett CIDs are doing a LRT study as we speak), that doesn't mean its a better project.

The existing "infrastructure" for the BeltLine comment is incorrect. The only thing that's intact is the right-of-way (except in the NW). Everything else, from the foundation and track to the bridges, would need to be reconstructed to accommodate streetcar/light rail.

i think there's an immediate market for alternate transportation today along the beltline, i would argue that the need is pretty clear if you've visited many of the neighborhoods in the path of or near the beltline.

the atlanta beltline is just that, it's NOT the METRO ATLANTA BELTLINE.

the beltline is a better project for the city of atlanta, it's about atlanta and has very little to do with the outlying counties and/or suburbs except that some may choose to live, work and be within central atlanta versus the suburbs as a result of the beltline. light rail to the suburbs IS NOT viable if the people out there do not want it.....you can't force logic on an unwilling audience.

that infrasturcture exists today IS a correct comment. true, there's much more physical infrastructure to be built, but had the ROW, existing rail segments, leveling, underpasses and overpasses not been in place today, the beltline would end up costing considerably more, not only in capital, but in persuading the public to support a project that would cut through the city where ROW didn't exist. even if most of the existing infrastructure needs to be rebuilt, it's a far cry from having to start from scratch.

WestsideATL · #**487** Posted **Jul 27, 2009, 1:10 AM**

Obviously this is an emotional argument. I invite anyone interested to read the linked white paper (http://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/1853/10713/1/FINAL_panel_paper_9.29.05.pdf) written by veteran planners and scholars who do not think transit should be an early action item for the BeltLine.

It's easy to get excited about new transit projects, but please ask yourselves, how would I use this? Aren't there other intown corridors where people currently travel that would make sense for an upgrade from bus to streetcar (Peachtree, Ponce de Leon, etc.) in advance of some potential corridor like the BeltLine?

atl2phx · #**488** Posted **Jul 27, 2009, 12:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WestsideATL

Obviously this is an emotional argument. I invite anyone interested to read the linked white paper (http://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/1853/10713/1/FINAL_panel_paper_9.29.05.pdf) written by veteran planners and scholars who do not think transit should be an early action item for the BeltLine.

It's easy to get excited about new transit projects, but please ask yourselves, how would I use this? Aren't there other intown corridors where people currently travel that would make sense for an upgrade from bus to streetcar (Peachtree, Ponce de Leon, etc.) in advance of some potential corridor like the BeltLine?

i guess what i don't understand about your position, is well, your position. you defer to this scholar or that one who each seem to doubt the transit component. what is it that you disagree with? i'm not certain you fully understand the scope of what the beltline is.

the beltline is what it is. it's a transformational project that will stimulate investment and reconnect 40+ intown neighborhoods that are to varying degrees lacking transit options, greenspace/parks, investment, tax base, jobs and population growth. these goals aren't as necessary for the peachtree or ponce corridors to the degree it is along the path of the beltline.

for the record, beltline has worked with neighborhoods and residents that will be served by the beltline, and the question was asked whould they find the beltline a valuable and usable asset, overwhelmingly, the answer was "yes".

cybele · #**489** Posted **Jul 27, 2009, 4:51 PM**

I can see a lot of ways that the Beltline can enhance connectivity. Let's say I'm in Vine City and want to hang out at Piedmont Park. It's a straight shot on the MARTA train to Inman Park, and from there I can transfer to the Beltllne and be in the park in short order.

Likewise, suppose I'm in Virginia-Highland and want to meet a friend and do some window shopping at West End Mall. It's an easy .8 mile stroll to the Beltline, and probably no more than a 30 minute ride to the Mall.

That kind of access is bound to be a boon to both neighborhoods.

WestsideATL · #**490** Posted **Jul 27, 2009, 11:32 PM**

This is a typical "built it and they will come" mentality and that's a huge risk to be taking when we have a small pool of funding to spread around. Portland was able to pull it off with their streetcar over in the Pearl District, but they started their streetcar system with 95% local funding. "Locally funded" is not in Atlanta's lexicon. We'd rather spend years fighting the with feds (or now, picking a fight with the state) to get funding for our transit projects.

MARTA's estimated project cost for the locally preferred alignment using streetcar was roughly $840M. Just for a reality check, Portland's 4.8 mile starter line only cost $57M. It's ok to be ambitious, and I commend Ryan Gravel for his vision. I just disagree that the BeltLine "is what it is". Transit in this corridor is too expensive for what it is and the city will never have the intestinal fortitude to pay for it itself.

I'll restate it once more and then I'm done arguing - My position is that there are no-brainer elements to the BeltLine such as the parks and trails, but seriously, it's not an all or nothing proposition. These areas have been woefully underinvested in for years and the new parks and trails will help revitalize and connect those communities. It's already happening... Transit can follow later, when feasible. That money in the near-term can then be refocused to areas that actually warrant transit investments now, like the Clifton, Peachtree and Ponce corridors ITP or the I-75/Cobb Pkwy and I-85/Buford Hwy corridors OTP.

cybele · #**491** Posted **Jul 28, 2009, 2:17 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WestsideATL

Transit can follow later, when feasible. That money in the near-term can then be refocused to areas that actually warrant transit investments now, like the Clifton, Peachtree and Ponce corridors ITP or the I-75/Cobb Pkwy and I-85/Buford Hwy corridors OTP.

Don't forget Gwinnett. They're talking light rail and they don't mess around up there. They could have it up and going before you know it.

atl2phx · #**492** Posted **Jul 28, 2009, 2:22 AM**

westsideATL, i don't think anyone is arguing. it would make sense that if you have points to make, it's a bit early to drop out.

you seem to have little faith in the beltline concept, or at least the transit component, that's fine.

i have yet to hear anyone here suggest, mandate or argue for an "all or nothing" approach, honestly, i don't know where pulling that from. on the contrary, i think it's been mentioned several times that transit will likely follow in segments, with a GOAL of completion in a 20-30 year window; however, it's also very likely that certain segments may carry transit much earlier.

i don't get your position, particuarly when you bring up alternate projects as if they're in competition with the beltline. why would you position the beltline as competitive project among others such as clifton, peachtree and ponce corridors or the I-75/Cobb Pkwy and I-85/Buford Hwy corridors OTP? seriously, i'd like to understand.

atl2phx · #**493** Posted **Jul 28, 2009, 2:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WestsideATL

Transit can follow later, when feasible. That money in the near-term can then be refocused to areas that actually warrant transit investments now, like the Clifton, Peachtree and Ponce corridors ITP or the I-75/Cobb Pkwy and I-85/Buford Hwy corridors OTP.

what money?

electricron · #**494** Posted **Jul 28, 2009, 4:10 AM**

The entire Beltline circle is just 22 miles in length. Developing double track light rail service with 10 minute headways in abandoned rail corridors should cost approximately $40 Million per mile, if you're conservative and keep to grade as much as possible. That's around $880 Million. If you add significant mileage of elevated guideways, the costs can rise up to $60 Million per mile.

Streetcars systems are much cheaper to build overall, and much cheaper to build on existing railroad corridors than they are on city streets. You avoid the costs of moving utilities, like gas, water, and sewer lines under the streets and cable, telephone, and electric lines over the streets. I would guess if they kept to the abandoned rail corridors as much as possible, they could build a streetcar system for half the eariler costs. If they built the streetcar system entirely in city streets, you're looking at possibly $40 Million per mile. Those costs for moving utilities add up quickly.

Neither light rail nor streetcars can share the same tracks as freight trains. But they can share the same corridors. You'll have to grade separate the tracks wherever they meet. On active sections of freight tracks, it might be cheaper to take light rail to the city streets, or take light rail over the active freight corridors while paralleling them. In either case, streetcar structures should be cheaper to build than light rail.

I believe if Atlanta chose the more pedestrian friendly streetcars, they should save half the costs over light rail. Streetcars weigh less because they are smaller and slower, therefore need far less structures under the tracks. Streetcars maximum speeds are around 35 mph, and usually average less than 20 mph in city streets, while light rail trains maximum speeds are between 55 and 65 mph, and usually average around 30 mph in dedicated corridors. I believe streetcars averages speeds will increase to match light rail trains in a dedicated corridor with many stations that are closer to a half mile apart vs a mile apart. At a mile apart, streetcars average speeds will be faster again, but light rail average speeds will be faster more because they have higher maximum speeds.

I disagree waiting to build the transit components. If the goal is to rebuild these neighborhoods into higher density urban neighborhoods, transit will be a needed component, the sooner the better. Choosing streetcars should allow building transit on the Beltline sooner.

WestsideATL · #**495** Posted **Jul 29, 2009, 5:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by atl2phx

westsideATL, i don't think anyone is arguing. it would make sense that if you have points to make, it's a bit early to drop out.

you seem to have little faith in the beltline concept, or at least the transit component, that's fine.

i have yet to hear anyone here suggest, mandate or argue for an "all or nothing" approach, honestly, i don't know where pulling that from. on the contrary, i think it's been mentioned several times that transit will likely follow in segments, with a GOAL of completion in a 20-30 year window; however, it's also very likely that certain segments may carry transit much earlier.

i don't get your position, particuarly when you bring up alternate projects as if they're in competition with the beltline. why would you position the beltline as competitive project among others such as clifton, peachtree and ponce corridors or the I-75/Cobb Pkwy and I-85/Buford Hwy corridors OTP? seriously, i'd like to understand.

For the record, I never said I didn't believe in the transit component of the BeltLine. I just said that it shouldn't be a priority.

The projects are clearly in competition with one another. Different project sponsors are in the process of developing their plans. GDOT has the Chatt-Atlanta rail study, commuter rail and studies with transit elements on I-75 and I-285. Gwinnett is doing a study on I-85. I believe MARTA is, or will be, doing studies on the BeltLine, the Clifton Corridor and I-20 East. There might be even more studies out there that haven't made the news...

We need to get our priorities straight and realize we won't be able to build all of this stuff at once, if ever. I was stating that BeltLine transit, should be positioned behind some of the other projects, which in my opinion, are better suited for near-term implementation and that all of this talk about BeltLine transit now, is distracting the public interest and the politicial will away from these other projects.

So if you want to talk prioritization, I'd be interested in how you'd rank BeltLine transit relative to other projects identified by the region http://transitboard.org/files/concept3_stylized.pdf. Personally, I'd have at least 6-7 projects (most mentioned previously) which would be in front of the BeltLine.

cabasse · #**496** Posted **Jul 29, 2009, 9:35 PM**

people who actually show interest in and want to ride transit live/work/play near areas served by the beltline. we've been trying to force lrt and commuter rail on the suburbs forever. they'll get their act together and vote the right guys in to get the ball rolling when they finally get sick of traffic and gas prices. it's not like the local media is out there pushing the beltline on everyone, they're just covering the efforts by all those working so hard to make it happen.

atl2phx · #**497** Posted **Jul 30, 2009, 6:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WestsideATL

So if you want to talk prioritization, I'd be interested in how you'd rank BeltLine transit relative to other projects identified by the region http://transitboard.org/files/concept3_stylized.pdf. Personally, I'd have at least 6-7 projects (most mentioned previously) which would be in front of the BeltLine.

in as far as city of atlanta projects go, i'd rank the beltline ahead of any of them. hands down, no regrets.

i'm simply basing my opinion on the fact that the beltline offers a holistic and multi-faceted solution for the city of atlanta. most of the other projects within the C3 vision, while practical and useful in offering alternate transit solutions, are geographically fragmented and support specific sectors of transit between various suburbs and atlanta, or one suburb to another. it's pretty clear none of the other C3 projects come close to having the breadth and depth of impact the beltline will have on community, investment and transit in their respective corridors.

it would be awesome to see most of the C3 vision become reality, however, it's going to take a very long time for even the best components to be put into place.

as far as LRT riding the 85/buford hwy corridor, the 75/northside corridor and the northern 285 segment inbetween 75/85, there's no doubt those would be state/federal initiatives, yet, in as much as they both tend to support asphalt in the atlanta area, i can only imagine how far out (both in the minds of users and timing) those are. my guess is you'll see investment in expanded BRT, toll lanes and/or expanded lanes on 85/75 and 285 well before LRT emerges in those corridors.

in as much as i don't understand your position that the beltline would compete with these other projects, i appreciate that you advocate alternate modes of transportation to and from the suburbs. i think the time will come when residents of gwinnett, cobb and other counties reach a tipping point in favor of supporting and paying for transit options including LRT, i believe that's still pretty far out.

by the way, as i was looking at the concept3 vision....it doesn't really show the ponce project, i know there have been some conceptual plans, but unless ponce LRT is highlighted in a bold white on the concept3 document, i don't see it.