Amazon HQ2 thread

[The North One]

Originally Posted by SteveD

Let's beat a dead horse. Atlanta's in town traffic is better than it's nationwide reputation, and better than most larger metros in town traffic in the US, even those with much more expansive rapid transit. Atlanta has respectable mass transit, with a promise for much more, especially among it's sunbelt peers.

Respectable by this joke of a country's public transit standards isn't really saying much, which is arguably "respectable" by comparison as it is. Houston and Dallas were making decent transit investments as well despite declining ridership.

Atlanta has some of the worst congestion in the world (by hours spent in traffic) and is only behind the Bay Area, New York and LA in the US: http://www.ajc.com/news/local/atlanta-tr...orld-study-finds/C6JR110E1z9xZeGGmjJ2HM/ http://inrix.com/scorecard/

Not sure why all the homers and transplants in the thread are desperately trying to coddle the city's traffic congestion problems, calling it better than most US cities is a flat-out lie. Atlanta is an extremely low-density metro by design with no grid and transportation mostly served by highways and spaghetti junctions, traffic issues aren't surprising. Unless there's some sort of Haussmann style renovation in the city's future it's always going to have a severe disadvantage in this area. Public transit can only do so much without density.

[C.]

How could a city government publish such a document. lol

[mhays]

Originally Posted by JManc

Compared to who? New York? Atlanta probably fares well among comparable cities, not cities with a long history of mass transit and dense urban areas. I'm talking cities like Charlotte, Houston, Dallas, etc. These cities can spend all the money in the world on transit and cars will always dominate.

Compared to HQ1 for starters. Seattle's transit and walking commute shares in 2016 were both more than double Atlanta's for the central cities. (I wish the Census ACS did metro numbers).

Others such as LA, Portland, and Cleveland have similar percentages to Atlanta, but their central cities have larger percentages of their metros, as Seattle does as well. Actually Portland's percentage is a fair bit higher even before that factor.

[1overcosc]

Has anyone ordered the top 20 cities by transit mode share? I know New York would be #1 and Toronto would be #2, not sure where the others would fall.

[L41A]

Originally Posted by SteveD

Let's beat a dead horse. Atlanta's in town traffic is better than it's nationwide reputation, and better than most larger metros in town traffic in the US, even those with much more expansive rapid transit. Atlanta has respectable mass transit, with a promise for much more, especially among it's sunbelt peers.

Also, don't forget that the "plane train" at Hartsfield Jackson, isn't a train at all!
It's actually the busiest bus rapid transit system in the world!

I totally agree.

If you live Intown, Inside The Perimeter (ITP) or close to the Perimeter, Atlanta traffic ain't nearly as bad as its reputation. I say that and traffic is probably my least favorite thing about Atlanta. There are more options to the freeway if you are ITP. Atlanta's largest business/employment centers are ITP (Downtown, Midtown, Buckhead, Perimeter, Airport). And what MARTA does quite effectively is connect the business/employment centers. In addition to MARTA, if you are ITP, you are not as locked into taking the freeways as you would be if you are 5-10 miles OTP. I hate congested freeways so if needed, I take other routes or MARTA while commuting or driving anytime during the day.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by The North One

Respectable by this joke of a country's public transit standards isn't really saying much, which is arguably "respectable" by comparison as it is. Houston and Dallas were making decent transit investments as well despite declining ridership.

Atlanta has some of the worst congestion in the world (by hours spent in traffic) and is only behind the Bay Area, New York and LA in the US: http://www.ajc.com/news/local/atlanta-tr...orld-study-finds/C6JR110E1z9xZeGGmjJ2HM/ http://inrix.com/scorecard/

Not sure why all the homers and transplants in the thread are desperately trying to coddle the city's traffic congestion problems, calling it better than most US cities is a flat-out lie. Atlanta is an extremely low-density metro by design with no grid and transportation mostly served by highways and spaghetti junctions, traffic issues aren't surprising. Unless there's some sort of Haussmann style renovation in the city's future it's always going to have a severe disadvantage in this area. Public transit can only do so much without density.

Successful cities have a lot of traffic. I've never gone to a successful city and marveled at the lack of congestion. Atlanta has traffic and so does every other top 20 city. Atlanta also has the busiest airport in the U.S. Who cares?

[skyscraperpage17]

Here's a definitive look at typical traffic in Atlanta. Most of it is North of I-20.

If Amazon and their employees have a problem with North OTP traffic, they can simply live:

*ITP (which has great transit access)
*South OTP
*West OTP
*East OTP

[10023]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

Here's a definitive look at typical traffic in Atlanta. Most of it is North of I-20.

If Amazon and their employees have a problem with North OTP traffic, they can simply live:

*ITP (which has great transit access)
*South OTP
*West OTP
*East OTP

Except the nice neighborhoods are all to the North, so no, that doesn't work.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Successful cities have a lot of traffic. I've never gone to a successful city and marveled at the lack of congestion. Atlanta has traffic and so does every other top 20 city. Atlanta also has the busiest airport in the U.S. Who cares?

I was amazed by the lack of traffic congestion in Tokyo.

[Innsertnamehere]

Because highways are all tolled and driving is expensive as heck, no?

[themaguffin]

Correct. It even "punches above it's weight", believe it or not, since it's 8th highest ridership in the US for heavy rail, and Atlanta is not the 8th largest metro.

Not that many cities have heavy rail. It's not like it #8 out of 50, or even 30.

There's what, less than 20 systems?

While all metros have issues with traffic etc., Atlanta is a mess for a myriad of reasons.

[Atlanta3000]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Successful cities have a lot of traffic. I've never gone to a successful city and marveled at the lack of congestion. Atlanta has traffic and so does every other top 20 city. Atlanta also has the busiest airport in the U.S. Who cares?

Probably the best comment on this thread!

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by themaguffin

Not that many cities have heavy rail. It's not like it #8 out of 50, or even 30.

There's what, less than 20 systems?

My post from the previous page:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

yes, MARTA's ridership is respectable, especially for a sunbelt city, but it's also important to remember that there are only 11 US metros that even have heavy rail rapid transit systems to begin with.


US metros ranked by heavy rail rapid transit ridership (2016):

1. NYC (including PATH & SIR) - 2,837,711,900
2. Chicago ------------------------- 238,645,800
3. DC ------------------------------ 234,232,100
4. Boston -------------------------- 172,105,800
5. San Francisco ------------------- 135,310,700
6. Philly (including PATCO) ------- 104,862,600
7. Atlanta --------------------------- 68,678,700
8. LA -------------------------------- 45,863,900*
9. Miami ---------------------------- 21,095,500
10. Baltimore ----------------------- 11,241,200
11. Cleveland ------------------------ 6,419,400

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_rapid_transit_systems_by_ridership


(*) like several other cities, LA has a hybrid light/heavy/commuter rail network. if you combine all rail ridership numbers, LA would far surpass atlanta.

[pj3000]

^ I rode on a commuter train in Nashville last fall... does its system not count for some reason?



Also, I used to take the Trinity Railway between Dallas and Fort Worth. Are these systems not extensive enough to count among the listed 11?

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by 10023

Except the nice neighborhoods are all to the North, so no, that doesn't work.

No, that's incorrect.

[10023]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

No, that's incorrect.

Sorry, north and maybe east (Decatur). Otherwise you're going to have to give us something more than "no, that's incorrect".

And yes, by nice suburbs, I mean affluent ones. Those are the nice ones.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by pj3000

^ I rode on a commuter train in Nashville last fall... does its system not count for some reason?


Also, I used to take the Trinity Railway between Dallas and Fort Worth. Are these systems not extensive enough to count among the listed 11?

you're talking about commuter rail, which is distinct from heavy rail/rapid transit.

only the 11 metros i listed in my post above have heavy rail/rapid transit systems in the US.

lots of US metros have commuter rail systems/lines, but most of them are quite small/lightly trafficked.

in fact, only 7 US metros have combined commuter rail systems that carry more than 10M passengers/year.


US metros ranked by commuter rail ridership (2016):

1. NYC ------------ 278,155,600
2. Chicago --------- 83,905,700
3. Philly ------------ 36,927,700
4. Boston ---------- 34,243,100
5. SF --------------- 21,907,000
6. DC/Baltimore --- 13,476,600
7. LA --------------- 10,903,000
8. Salt Lake City ---- 4,545,800
9. Denver ----------- 4,317,400
10. Miami ----------- 4,175,000
11. Seattle ---------- 4,163,400
12. Dallas ----------- 2,563,200
13. San Diego ------ 1,503,700
14. Orlando ----------- 877,600
15. Albuquerque ------ 858,700
16. Austin ------------- 810,100
17. Minneapolis ------- 711,300
18. Portland ----------- 455,000
19. Nashville ---------- 280,900

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_commuter_rail_systems_by_ridership

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

you're talking about commuter rail, which is distinct from heavy rail/rapid transit.

lots of US metros have commuter rail systems/lines, but most of them are quite small/lightly trafficked.

only the 11 metros i listed in my post above have heavy rail/rapid transit systems.

Ahhh, got it... like a real subway/L

thanks for the info.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by 10023

Sorry, north and maybe east (Decatur). Otherwise you're going to have to give us something more than "no, that's incorrect".

And yes, by nice suburbs, I mean affluent ones. Those are the nice ones.

Fayette, Coweta and Henry Counties are all safe and solidly middle class counties on Atlanta's south side with good schools. Most Delta employees live in these areas because of the proximity to the airport. In fact, Fayette County has some of the best schools in the state. It was also the wealthiest county in GA until Forsyth County started to go gangbusters with growth. Even places such as Douglasville and Villa Rica aren't terrible (albeit more working class).

They're far less developed and have a higher African American population, but they offer the same type of suburban living in general that you'll find on the north side.

And a suburb doesn't have to be "affluent" to be good. WTF does that even mean?

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by pj3000

^ I rode on a commuter train in Nashville last fall... does its system not count for some reason?



Also, I used to take the Trinity Railway between Dallas and Fort Worth. Are these systems not extensive enough to count among the listed 11?

Nashville only has that lone commuter rail line though, with fairly low ridership at that.