ATLANTA TRANSIT (Marta, Beltline, Peachtree Streetcar, LovJoy Commuter, etc...)

[testarossa50]

Originally Posted by montydawg

Well, the economics of running a passenger railroad are not favorable to freight- so I believe CSX and NS are out. Nearly all countries, including China, are subsidizing the passenger railroad networks. Bright line plans on making a good chunk of their money on real estate. They purchased large chunks of land before stations were announced and plans leases on those plots and other like deals. Being bright line is more or less run by the existing railroad down the coast, FEC, who already owns the land, the economics were favorable since they already own the track. Florida also has a lot of density along a straight line, which is not really the case in atlanta outside peach tree street. I think any railroad in Georgia will need to be subsidized by the government, as any railroad with a slight chance of being profitable is being persued by private companies now.

Agreed with everything.

Additionally: Florida being a "spoke" on the rail network (based on its geography) means the opportunity costs of using existing freight rail corridors for passenger is much lower there than it is here in Atlanta. We're a hub for rail, just like in air travel, and adding passenger trains into the mix means you can handle a lot less freight than if the line is 100% dedicated to freight.

Most of our rail corridors are heavily-used, and even the lower-use generally connect with a heavily-used one before they get very close into the city. For instance, the big challenge on the Lovejoy commuter train (the one that NS was on board with) was getting into the actual city center and getting people off the train, after it joins CSX in East Point.

CSX going out to the east of Atlanta towards Stone Mountain seems like a decent opportunity for some rail, since there aren't any major junctions all the way to downtown and it's a pretty lightly traveled line. But, in my unsolicited opinion, we should just spend whatever number of hundreds of millions it costs to extend MARTA a mile or two and put in another station, and grow the network that way. If we had been adding an incremental station to the end of one MARTA line or another every other year, we'd have a significantly bigger network after a decade or two, and it would be much easier to sell to neighboring counties that they should buy into the system as well.

[smArTaLlone]

https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/news...cx_testVariant=cx_3&cx_artPos=7#cxrecs_s

MARTA has opted to go with rapid buses instead of light rail for its Clifton Corridor transit line in Atlanta and DeKalb County, the agency announced Monday.

MARTA plans to use bus rapid transit for a route connecting Lindbergh to the Druid Hills and North Decatur areas. It will touch Emory University, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other major employers.

[Labtec]

Originally Posted by smArTaLlone

https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/news...cx_testVariant=cx_3&cx_artPos=7#cxrecs_s

[atlantaguy]

Bastards

[atlantaguy]

Bastards!

[Atlurbsandspices]

How does one even advocate for giving MARTA more money in the future? Who can look at this organization, whose sole function this past year (well decades) has been to waste time pretending to collect community feedback and downsizing what the community thought they had voted to tax themselves for SEVEN FUCKING YEARS AGO.

Build something, band build it fast. Show some proof of concept that it can actually be done, or go away.

[newuserbuckhead]

Originally Posted by Atlurbsandspices

How does one even advocate for giving MARTA more money in the future? Who can look at this organization, whose sole function this past year (well decades) has been to waste time pretending to collect community feedback and downsizing what the community thought they had voted to tax themselves for SEVEN FUCKING YEARS AGO.

Build something, band build it fast. Show some proof of concept that it can actually be done, or go away.

The community never voted for any Clifton corridor transit. This area wasn't in the city yet when the City of Atlanta voted to have an additional cent of sales tax for transit projects. Then the City went and annexed this area, after the vote, and MARTA decided to use that new funding source for this area. Bait and Switch.

[shivtim]

^The vast majority of the northern half of the Clifton Corridor has always been in the city of Atlanta. It's only the last quarter of a mile (Emory/CDC area) that was annexed. And light rail has been planned for this corridor for at least 15 years. The way "More MARTA" was presented to the voters is criminal. They were never going to have enough money to do even 10% of the projects that were promised.

[montydawg]

Originally Posted by shivtim

^The vast majority of the northern half of the Clifton Corridor has always been in the city of Atlanta. It's only the last quarter of a mile (Emory/CDC area) that was annexed. And light rail has been planned for this corridor for at least 15 years. The way "More MARTA" was presented to the voters is criminal. They were never going to have enough money to do even 10% of the projects that were promised.

It could be worse. Up here in New York, they just built it anyway and the spiraling costs don’t seem to be a factor. The government just goes into massive debt to build pet projects of the governor and local government. Unlike atlanta, however, the projects that do get built are highly utilized, despite the massive costs.

[newuserbuckhead]

Originally Posted by montydawg

It could be worse. Up here in New York, they just built it anyway and the spiraling costs don’t seem to be a factor. The government just goes into massive debt to build pet projects of the governor and local government. Unlike atlanta, however, the projects that do get built are highly utilized, despite the massive costs.

You must not have ever been on the streetcar downtown. That was a pet project built by the city. It's rather useless for anything other than making noise. But I do agree, transit projects in the US are far too expensive for no reason, especially compared to what is built in other developed counties for a fraction of the cost we see.

[tinyslam]

Originally Posted by montydawg

It could be worse. Up here in New York, they just built it anyway and the spiraling costs don’t seem to be a factor. The government just goes into massive debt to build pet projects of the governor and local government. Unlike atlanta, however, the projects that do get built are highly utilized, despite the massive costs.

Cool so NYC has a bunch of functioning options and a bunch of debt, while Atlanta has very limited options and a bunch of surplus money doing fuckall. Are you really saying that Atlanta has it better than NYC?

Originally Posted by newuserbuckhead

You must not have ever been on the streetcar downtown. That was a pet project built by the city. It's rather useless for anything other than making noise. But I do agree, transit projects in the US are far too expensive for no reason, especially compared to what is built in other developed counties for a fraction of the cost we see.

The streetcar would be so much better if it was just one section of a larger network.

[Tuckerman]

This outcome is no surprise to those of us following mass transit around the globe. The US, with rare exceptions, simply does not build comprehensive mass transit solutions to moving people around. It is not in our "culture." High expense is no excuse. Other countries spend considerable money to build, maintain and develop mass transit. We prefer to spend those funds on roads and armament - we have plenty of both. With regard to mass transit in Atlanta, keep your expectations low and you will not be disappointed.

[Libertarian]

Can you imagine the cost to run a rail to Gwinnett. At least the Clifton case (short version) made sense. You can't compare the rest of world with US (love it or leave it).

[montydawg]

Originally Posted by Libertarian

Can you imagine the cost to run a rail to Gwinnett. At least the Clifton case (short version) made sense. You can't compare the rest of world with US (love it or leave it).

I believe commuter rail from Gainesville all the way down past Buford, doraville, buckhead, peachtree, cnn center and finally the airport would be massively successful. The stations don’t need to be fancy, just a platform, some lights, and a handicapped ramp. I guess NS would oppose this tooth and nail so maybe it is not an option. If it was used extensively, then you can build out fancy stations.

[testarossa50]

Originally Posted by montydawg

I believe commuter rail from Gainesville all the way down past Buford, doraville, buckhead, peachtree, cnn center and finally the airport would be massively successful. The stations don’t need to be fancy, just a platform, some lights, and a handicapped ramp. I guess NS would oppose this tooth and nail so maybe it is not an option. If it was used extensively, then you can build out fancy stations.

It would really, really diminish the freight rail capacity of central Atlanta. We have some of the busiest junctions in the whole country, and there's no way to engineer them to accommodate existing volumes plus a bunch of commuter trains.

But the premise as stated is kind of ridiculous. MARTA heavy rail already runs practically to the Gwinnett County line. In terms of dollars and engineering feasibility, it would not be that expensive to extend it into Gwinnett. The problems are (1) Gwinnett hasn't voted for MARTA and (2) we've decided heavy rail expansions are impossible (even though, I donno, I see them happen in LA and SF pretty often).

[Tuckerman]

To appreciate what other countries have done and continue to do, view the excellent NOVA https://www.pbs.org/video/london-super-tunnel-xlvcul/ on the new underground line in London. It shows the history and continued commitment to mass transit that is found elsewhere in contrast to the pathetic American approach.

[Tuckerman]

Fact: We are the wealthiest country in the world and have the most underdeveloped mass transits systems in our major cities compared with all other OECD countries.

[Libertarian]

Our US metro areas are not as dense as elsewhere. In more general terms, the European Union's population density, is 300 persons per square mile (only 7 out of 50 US states are above this) whereas the US's population density is 81 persons per square mile (only 4 out of 28 EU states are below this). Bonus point: For some reason having to do with excess regulation and extreme legal environment the cost per passenger mile of building and operating anything in this country is excessive.

[newuserbuckhead]

Fact: American cities are significantly less dense than our European and Asian counterparts. (Paris is more densely populated than NYC) Rail transit simply doesn't make sense for the vast majority of cities in the US. US transit systems are designed to move the masses from the suburbs to the central city for work and then back out again; further contributing to sprawl. Heck even the TGV has done that to Paris.

What exactly is the purported goal of transit? Reduce congestion? That's never been done, not in NYC, London, Shanghai. Self-driving cars will do more for reducing congestion than anything will since most traffic jams are caused by human psychology than actual roadway conditions.

Transit doesn't do a good job of moving people between where they are and where they want to go. Most people in Metro Atlanta aren't trying to get to the Airport, or Downtown, or Midtown, or Buckhead, or even Perimeter Center. They're all traveling between the suburbs and usually within their own county.

See this study from ARC for more information on regional commuting patterns.

Only Fulton and DeKalb counties have the majority of their commuters going to the afformentioned intown job centers.

Spending billions and billions to extend rail further out to the suburbs in the hopes of drawing a few thousand commuters onto the trains isn't worth the money. If we're going to spend billions on rail infrastructure, it should be done in areas that will actually use it. In areas where it will make a real and tangible impact. Intown areas where lifestyle changes can actually happen. West Midtown, the Beltline, crosstown lines. Provide the opportunity to live car-lite lifestyles if people want. But further extending rail to far flung parts of the metro for little to no benefit isn't the best use of limited funds.

The billions spent on our roads throughout the metro help all of us. I haven't been on a Marta train since 2019. But I've driven on nearly every highway in the metro at some point in the last 4 years.

[lux]

Originally Posted by newuserbuckhead

Fact: American cities are significantly less dense than our European and Asian counterparts. (Paris is more densely populated than NYC) Rail transit simply doesn't make sense for the vast majority of cities in the US.

And WHY are American cities less dense - do you even know? Do you know what Urban Renewal and white flight are? The Highway and Interstate Act? Do you know who Robert Moses is?

You would be well served to find out what the growth patterns has been over time in Atlanta, because you clearly are not aware. Cities in America WERE dense (ALL of them), until a suburban pattern of growth was prescribed to them in the mid-20th through highway construction and sweeping destruction of urban property and infrastructure. This is why the expression "the suburban experiment" is used. It is because suburbs did not evolve naturally from our needs or living patterns, they were prescribed by government action and corporate interests.

Originally Posted by newuserbuckhead

US transit systems are designed to move the masses from the suburbs to the central city for work and then back out again; further contributing to sprawl. Heck even the TGV has done that to Paris.

I haven't heard that one before. What an outrageously wrong thing to say! Transit cannot contribute to sprawl. The very definition of sprawl is poorly planned expansion. Commuter and regional transit is the very thing that enables people to live without cars away from the city center.

Originally Posted by newuserbuckhead

What exactly is the purported goal of transit? Reduce congestion? That's never been done, not in NYC, London, Shanghai. Self-driving cars will do more for reducing congestion than anything will since most traffic jams are caused by human psychology than actual roadway conditions.

The purported goal of transit is it move people efficiently and to democratize movement. This is why cars are one of the main obstacles to social mobility in America. It has been done countless times and continues to happen.
And you introduce yet another flawed premise: people don't CARE about congestion if they don't have to deal with it. Billions of people do not even have to think about what car traffic is like because it simply does not affect their lives. Also, self driving cars don't even exist on a commercial basis lol.

Originally Posted by newuserbuckhead

Transit doesn't do a good job of moving people between where they are and where they want to go. Most people in Metro Atlanta aren't trying to get to the Airport, or Downtown, or Midtown, or Buckhead, or even Perimeter Center. They're all traveling between the suburbs and usually within their own county.

See this study from ARC for more information on regional commuting patterns.

Only Fulton and DeKalb counties have the majority of their commuters going to the afformentioned intown job centers.

The premise that commuters mostly only go from suburb to suburb is wrong and flawed. The goal should be to reduce the amount of time spent in cars and distances travelled for daily needs. That is the entire problem with how sprawled Atlanta is. That is why people argue for a greater concentration of housing and services. The point is not that "trips are from suburb to suburb", the point is that people should have to go less far, or at least drive less, for their daily needs. NOT that everyone should have unrestricted access to downtown Atlanta.

Also, "only Fulton and Dekalb" ok so 2 million people???

Originally Posted by newuserbuckhead

Spending billions and billions to extend rail further out to the suburbs in the hopes of drawing a few thousand commuters onto the trains isn't worth the money. If we're going to spend billions on rail infrastructure, it should be done in areas that will actually use it. In areas where it will make a real and tangible impact. Intown areas where lifestyle changes can actually happen. West Midtown, the Beltline, crosstown lines. Provide the opportunity to live car-lite lifestyles if people want. But further extending rail to far flung parts of the metro for little to no benefit isn't the best use of limited funds.

This is a good point. Atlanta is in a certain predicament today due to poor judgement and evil motives from our ancestors. We should prioritize where to expand rail - why reward those that fully embrace a car-centric lifestyle?

Originally Posted by newuserbuckhead

The billions spent on our roads throughout the metro help all of us. I haven't been on a Marta train since 2019. But I've driven on nearly every highway in the metro at some point in the last 4 years.

I think this is a good display of the flawed premise your argument is built upon. It's not because you choose to drive that you haven't been on a MARTA train - it's because this is how life here was dictated to you. Driving is the most convenient option, so buy a car you shall. drive you shall. And spend money on car infrastructure the municipalities shall, because "that's the best way to get around!" No, it's the only way to get around.