Atlanta Beltline

[plorenc]

Originally Posted by scpatl4now

I found this map of what future rail should look like (more like wish). I dont remember what it was from though or how old. Hopefully someone will know

That was me. I based the map off of the Concept 3 plan. Here's an update:

[IMG]

[popewiz]

Originally Posted by cybele

Well it sounds like some of the folks along this Beltline thing are having a pretty rough go of it.

What is your reason for being so transparently opposed to mass transit, or any project remotely related?

[jew4life4948]

interesting to compare your vision to CFPT's.

[STrek777]

Originally Posted by plorenc

That was me. I based the map off of the Concept 3 plan. Here's an update:

[IMG]

for the money they would spend building the tunnel and widning the interstates they could build this map in full and have it operating in its entirety in 10 years.

[scpatl4now]

Originally Posted by STrek777

for the money they would spend building the tunnel and widning the interstates they could build this map in full and have it operating in its entirety in 10 years.

especially as opposed to the IT3 plan

[IMG][/IMG]

[cabasse]

^yes, plenty of neon indeed

[cybele]

Originally Posted by popewiz

What is your reason for being so transparently opposed to mass transit, or any project remotely related?

Well I don't know why you say that, I'm not opposed to mass transit at all. It does seem like there are some folks who think we should only have a certain kind of mass transit, namely fancy light rail. I have heard some say they wouldn't even get on a bus unless it looked like a train. If transit is about getting a lot of people from Point A to point B, what's wrong with the dang bus. According to the Wikepedia thing MARTA has 330 rapid rail cars and 554 modern low gas buses but I see them going around with hardly anybody on them lots of times.

[Curious Atlantan]

I guess part of the reason why people are not taking buses is because the city does not really mean running them, and the consequence is a bad quality
transit experience. They are not running often enough, they are noisy and not always well maintained, the bus stops are just ridiculous (many times there is no sidewalk and there is never a schedule on display or at least a sign saying what line it is), and I could go on...
The streetcars represent the opposite of this, and if you visit Portland you will understand perfectly what I mean. The infrastructure investment is obvious, the rails are there to stay, the vehicles are sleek, silent, and clean, the stops are a pleasure...
I have to say though that you are right - it would be cheaper for the city to improve the bus riding experience, identify which routes make sense to keep and focus on running those in an exemplary manner to attract more riders. Slowly slowly they can improve the image and maybe one day it will become more cool to ride a bus.

[ QUOTE=cybele;4664483]Well I don't know why you say that, I'm not opposed to mass transit at all. It does seem like there are some folks who think we should only have a certain kind of mass transit, namely fancy light rail. I have heard some say they wouldn't even get on a bus unless it looked like a train. If transit is about getting a lot of people from Point A to point B, what's wrong with the dang bus. According to the Wikepedia thing MARTA has 330 rapid rail cars and 554 modern low gas buses but I see them going around with hardly anybody on them lots of times.[/QUOTE]

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by Curious Atlantan

I guess part of the reason why people are not taking buses is because the city does not really mean running them, and the consequence is a bad quality
transit experience. They are not running often enough, they are noisy and not always well maintained, the bus stops are just ridiculous (many times there is no sidewalk and there is never a schedule on display or at least a sign saying what line it is), and I could go on...
The streetcars represent the opposite of this, and if you visit Portland you will understand perfectly what I mean. The infrastructure investment is obvious, the rails are there to stay, the vehicles are sleek, silent, and clean, the stops are a pleasure...
I have to say though that you are right - it would be cheaper for the city to improve the bus riding experience, identify which routes make sense to keep and focus on running those in an exemplary manner to attract more riders. Slowly slowly they can improve the image and maybe one day it will become more cool to ride a bus.

[ QUOTE=cybele;4664483]Well I don't know why you say that, I'm not opposed to mass transit at all. It does seem like there are some folks who think we should only have a certain kind of mass transit, namely fancy light rail. I have heard some say they wouldn't even get on a bus unless it looked like a train. If transit is about getting a lot of people from Point A to point B, what's wrong with the dang bus. According to the Wikepedia thing MARTA has 330 rapid rail cars and 554 modern low gas buses but I see them going around with hardly anybody on them lots of times.

[/QUOTE]


I (and a lot of other people I'm sure) don't use buses because they are simply inconvenient - a short trip takes twice as long as if I drive. Part of the purpose of public transit is convenience. The trains aren't as inconvenient as the buses, but it usually takes longer than driving as well.

[shivtim]

I take the 39 bus every weekday, and it's incredibly convenient. Runs every 12 minutes.

It just depends on where you live/work. I certainly wouldn't want to take a bus more than a 3 miles or so because it would stop too much and take too long.

[smArTaLlone]

By Leon Stafford
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

The urban designer whose graduate thesis is the basis of Atlanta's BeltLine is part of the group that will design the project.

Ryan Gravel works for Perkins+Will, a Chicago-based architectural firm that was chosen Wednesday by the board of directors of Atlanta Beltline Inc. to lay out the vision for the 22-mile loop of transit, parks and mixed-use development.

Perkins+Will will partner with James Corner Field Operations, a New York-based architectural firm, to lead work on the design, which will show what the BeltLine will look like and establish the basis for all future BeltLine design and construction, the group said.

Perkins+Will has its second largest office in Atlanta. James Corner does not have an office in the city.

The pricetag: up to $9.5 million.

“A public space like that envisioned by the BeltLine, with pedestrian-friendly rail transit, trails, greenspace and abutting development in one corridor does not exist today in Atlanta or any other city in the United States,” Brian Leary, president & chief executive officer of the Beltline, said in a press release.

The overall work will include 19 firms, whose responsibilities will include civil and structural engineering, surveys, landscape design, historic preservation, public art locations and signage. Fourteen of the 19 firms are either based in Atlanta or offices here.

The design will also define the physical boundaries of the corridor and identify engineering constraints and solutions for all elements of the BeltLine, the group said.

[smArTaLlone]

Here's a good article on the BeltLine’s director of design Fred Yalouris.

Converting a 22-mile railroad loop into the BeltLine, an urban amenity of transit, parks, trails and art that will link 45 Atlanta neighborhoods, is a herculean task. Fred Yalouris, the BeltLine’s director of design, knows “herculean” — and not just because he’s spent most of his life as an archaeologist.

The Maine-bred former college dean arrived here two years ago, on the heels of a decade spent working on the “Big Dig,” a Hydra-headed public works project that took downtown Boston’s highway underground. (He was responsible for the parks, streets and such that now lie on top of it.) Anyone who, upon completing that job, would look expressly for an equally complicated one clearly loves a challenge.

Walking the walk

[dante2308]

Look, as bad as traffic is, it is still much faster to drive to your destination than to take the bus or train almost all the time. I would say that we don't need more transit until that changes. As I said, better automobile efficiency and dropping fossil fuel usage are stripping away the environmental arguments against cars.

With the advent of the hybrid I don't see any real motivation for a lifestyle change for the average resident other than being stuck in traffic and as much as I think trains are cool, I don't want to purposely clog the roads to get justify transit. The point of transportation infrastructure is convenience and efficiency. There is no justification for reducing both just because of retro 2005 anti-automobilism.

Atlanta is NOT New York. We don't have any physical size limitations or space limitations for road systems. Transit is the domain of built up or historical cities constructed without a mind for population expansion which any flight over Atlanta will tell you isn't an issue. The city of Atlanta alone has a long, long way to go before it can call itself dense or urban.

[atl2phx]

Originally Posted by dante2308

Look, as bad as traffic is, it is still much faster to drive to your destination than to take the bus or train almost all the time. I would say that we don't need more transit until that changes. As I said, better automobile efficiency and dropping fossil fuel usage are stripping away the environmental arguments against cars.

With the advent of the hybrid I don't see any real motivation for a lifestyle change for the average resident other than being stuck in traffic and as much as I think trains are cool, I don't want to purposely clog the roads to get justify transit. The point of transportation infrastructure is convenience and efficiency. There is no justification for reducing both just because of retro 2005 anti-automobilism.

Atlanta is NOT New York. We don't have any physical size limitations or space limitations for road systems. Transit is the domain of built up or historical cities constructed without a mind for population expansion which any flight over Atlanta will tell you isn't an issue. The city of Atlanta alone has a long, long way to go before it can call itself dense or urban.

wow, somehow the entire concept of the beltline wizzed right by you.

[dante2308]

The Beltline isn't an attempt to take cars off the road, it is an attempt to redevelop the corridor. Transit there only makes sense after the area is densified. There is no real benefit to a resident already living in the core to use transit other than a lack of parking. I'm just saying that transit is the domain of dense urban areas and it in of itself shouldn't be our financial priority. There are several levels of community redevelopments that Atlanta needs and I'm not sure if focusing all the money of the same few square miles is even ethical.

[ATLaffinity]

ethical???

The Beltline mostly runs through poorer neighborhoods.

Westside Park isn't serving rich people.

[reet]

Originally Posted by dante2308

Look, as bad as traffic is, it is still much faster to drive to your destination than to take the bus or train almost all the time. I would say that we don't need more transit until that changes. As I said, better automobile efficiency and dropping fossil fuel usage are stripping away the environmental arguments against cars.

I believe you're right in that driving to your destination is faster than taking transit in most cases in Atlanta. Speed is not the only reason for a transportation choice, though, and there is a definite convenience -- found by the many people who choose to not be car owners and who use alternate transportation -- in not purchasing, maintaining, storing and parking a car. Not to mention avoiding the dangerous art of navigating our roads where traffic accidents occur every 2.8 minutes on surface streets across the 18-county metro area, to the cost of $4.7 billion a year.

RE: "automobile efficiency and dropping fossil fuel usage are stripping away the environmental arguments against cars" -- better fuel efficiency and lower pollution of automobiles are inarguable good things and as someone very concerned about the environment I applaud these improvements, but there are other environmental concerns involved in our societal dominance of personal car ownership. The massive land-space coverage of asphalt for roads and parking spaces that serves the needs of car owners is an environmental hazard -- one that concerns me more so than the fuel consumption issue. Rain water run off pollution and reduced land area for green space are two key problems caused by the road and parking space coverage of our built environment.

Originally Posted by dante2308

Transit is the domain of built up or historical cities constructed without a mind for population expansion which any flight over Atlanta will tell you isn't an issue. The city of Atlanta alone has a long, long way to go before it can call itself dense or urban.

Transit development is the domain of any city or region that chooses to make an investment in it, regardless of their historical usage of transit. Atlanta's density is not consistent throughout the city. There are low-density areas that are, certainly, not in need of transit expansion. But there are also parts where the population density is very high and I think those areas would be well-served by additional, short-length transit lines.

[atl2phx]

Originally Posted by dante2308

The Beltline isn't an attempt to take cars off the road, it is an attempt to redevelop the corridor.

wrong. offering an alternative to carbon based transit IS a goal of the beltline. it may not be the primary or secondary goal, but it IS clearly understood that the beltline will serve as an alternate mode of transit between point of interest and employment centers as well as connecting to marta heavy rail.

Originally Posted by dante2308

Transit there only makes sense after the area is densified.

this philosophy seems more applicable for suburban transit solutions, however, we're talking about the city of atlanta and some of the densest parts of the metro. the beltline corridor passes through or nearby many of the city's highest density neighborhoods and/or business districts. it makes perfect sense to incentivize and encourage development in the same area, particularly where there has been a history of dis-investment and abandonment.

Originally Posted by dante2308

I'm just saying that transit is the domain of dense urban areas and it in of itself shouldn't be our financial priority. There are several levels of community redevelopments that Atlanta needs and I'm not sure if focusing all the money of the same few square miles is even ethical.

since, this is a beltline thread, i assumed that's what we're talking about, but i'm not sure if we're on the same topic.

the beltline covers almost 10% of the city of atlanta's land area, it's not a few square miles.

you'll have to shed more light on your list of community redevelopment initiatives that you believe should receive more focus and funding over the beltline, but keep in mind, the beltline is/will be (for the most part) funded from specific TAD's that wouldn't be relevant to most other projects.

[reet]

Originally Posted by smArTaLlone

Here's a good article on the BeltLine’s director of design Fred Yalouris.



Walking the walk

Thanks for the link -- what a cool read. Yalouris is an interesting guy. I had no idea he worked on the Big Dig previously. The Beltline is attracting some big talent, for sure.

My favorite quote:

Says Yalouris, who has spotted possibilities for pocket parks on his many walks: “I like to see the BeltLine as a linear park through which the train will delicately pass.”

I love that 1.) he's thinking about pocket parks, which we need a lot more of in Atlanta, and 2.) he's envisioning the future of the Beltline when a train may be part of it (even if that ends up being far in the future).

[plorenc]

Originally Posted by atl2phx

this philosophy seems more applicable for suburban transit solutions, however, we're talking about the city of atlanta and some of the densest parts of the metro. the beltline corridor passes through or nearby many of the city's highest density neighborhoods and/or business districts. it makes perfect sense to incentivize and encourage development in the same area, particularly where there has been a history of dis-investment and abandonment.

Although I may not agree with the effectiveness of the circular route of the Beltline, the densities in its corridor are definitely high enough, ranging from 4,000 to 10,000 people/square mile .