ATL Urbanist
Recent Posts
Could MARTA Benefit Financially From a Higher-Density Atlanta?
| | No Comments
Could MARTA benefit financially from a higher-density Atlanta?When CEO Keith Parker took the reigns of MARTA about two and a half years ago, the agency was in a dire financial situation with a heavy deficit. Things turned around quickly under his administration with the transit system now operating at a profit. With Clayton County recently signed on as part of the system and a full slate of TOD projects on the horizon, putting mixed-use developments at rail stations where parking lots now sit, the future looks to be bright.But could it be even better? The chart above shows how much money is spent my US transit agencies on each rail-passenger trip, after fare (see the full chart here). MARTA pays about $2 for each trip after fare – meaning that the full cost of the trip (with fare currently at $2.50) is about $4.50. As an Atlantic Cities piece points out, systems that operate in cities with higher population densities tend to spend less money on those trips.“The notable pattern here is that transit does a better job operating
near cost in compact cities with dense residential and commercial development… generally speaking, as a transit
system stretches into remote and far-flung suburbs, it becomes harder to
pick up enough fares to cover expenses.“And that may in fact be a benefit of those transit-oriented developments MARTA is planning. With a higher density of people in compact, walkable places near the rail stations, there could end up being a financial boost for the system. My main concern then is in making sure that the TODs do in fact generate transit trips; something that I have to question when I see the amount of parking they’re including in the renderings that have been released. Recent reports of 17,000 estimated vacant properties in the City of Atlanta alone also point to the potential for growth in residential density here. If we could encourage infill in a walkable format, that could bring great benefits to the city in many ways with one of them being growth in use of transit (I don’t know how many of those vacancies are near rail stations, but I have to assume that many are near bus lines).
Where Bike Commutes Could Potentially Rise in Atlanta Region
| | No Comments
There’s a pretty incredible mapping tool from Deloitte that shows projections for bike commuting and ride sharing across the US. I was particularly interested in the bike commuting maps – the one above shows the level of bike commuting possible by people in the Atlanta region who work 5 miles or less from their homes. View the full map here.The map accompanies an equally fascinating study: “Smart mobility: Reducing congestion and fostering faster, greener, and cheaper transportation options.“The study made a model of projected bike commuting built around the idea that “anyone who works five or fewer miles from home could reasonably commute by bike.” Importantly, they note that year round bike commuting is not a reasonable expectation, so the model was adjusted:We recognize that few, if any, bike commuters will bike to work every day of the year. In fact, hours of daylight, weather, and climate will keep many from cycling as far or as often. We therefore apply a conservative annual frequency factor of 96 days per year. Even with that conservative adjustment to bike commuting, the model showed that US cities stand to gain $2.6 billion per year “in indirect savings based on lower road construction costs, reduced accidents, and lower carbon dioxide emissions.” For a region like Atlanta’s that is constantly struggling to address traffic congestion and infrastructure costs, there could be a huge benefit to taking cars off the road this way.For the entire Atlanta region, the projected new bike commuters at different commute distances work out to these numbers:1 mile: 96,8802 miles: 237,5093 miles: 352,8964 miles: 457,0755 miles: 556,630As the study notes, this is all very pie-in-the-sky number crunching without the proper infrastructure. It would require a complete network of protected bike lanes, along with other safety & convenience measures, to accomplish these numbers. But it’s useful to see what kind of possibilities there are for improving transportation in the region.
Missed Connections in the Peach State
| | No Comments
Georgia offers small change for transit systems struggling to serve the growing divide between where people live and workHow do transit systems in Georgia struggle? Let me count the ways. A 2010 report from the American Public Transportation Association shows Georgia to have one of the lowest levels of transit spending, per resident, in the country. Georgia spent 63 cents per person on public transportation in 2008; compare that to $119.52 per person spent in New Jersey, $40.43 in Illinois and $7.94 in North Carolina for that year.That low spending is reflected clearly in Atlanta, where MARTA ranks as the largest US transit agency to have no state funding stream for operations.So you can understand the excitement felt by many when it was announced earlier this year that the state was going to set aside $100 million in bonds for transit projects statewide. It’s a small amount of money considering the budgets of transit systems, but it was encouraging to see Georgia at least make the gesture – one that might, arguably, be a sign of changing opinions on transit spending at the state level. But this week we have news that the amount, already a small gesture, has gotten smaller. It now stands at $75 million. Why? …$25 million was taken out and dedicated to other purposes, primarily a planned regional workforce training center near the “Savannah Megasite,” a 1,558-acre property at interstates 16 and 95 the state has been trying for years to peddle to auto manufacturers eying Georgia.Brookings report shows the damage of job-sprawl in AtlantaThis move feels like a slap in the face during a week when a Brookings report shows us the growing need for us to provide better connections in Georgia between people and jobs. According to the report, titled “The growing distance between people and jobs in metropolitan America,” it’s getting harder for people all over the country to live near jobs; metro Atlanta is pointed out as a place that exemplifies the troubles of commuters. Between 2000 and 2012, the Atlanta region saw a 14.8% drop in the average number of jobs located near a typical resident, one of the greatest decreases in the US. The problem is this: as the region sprawls outward in a low density fashion, it becomes harder for residents on the edges to be near the clusters of jobs; a situation that gets exacerbated by the equally sprawling locations of jobs. From the report:Although the Atlanta region gained jobs overall during the 2000s, the number of nearby jobs fell for the typical resident as employment spread out within the metro area…job density fell on average in both the city and suburbs. Thus, typical residents in both locations saw their proximity to jobs decline.Take a look at the image above – it contrasts the massive footprint of the urbanized Atlanta region with the cluster of job density. With the points on either ends of commutes becoming further and spreading in all directions, transit systems struggle to keep up with the needs of workers. The situation is particularly dire for the growing number of low-income workers who are settling in the suburbs; with a great Politico piece from last year noting that “poor residents of suburban Atlanta can only reach 17 percent of the region’s jobs” due to the lack of transit available to them in their sprawling, car-centric environments. Looking at these facts all together, that lost $25 million for transit systems in Georgia looks even more insulting. But we can take heart that at least it will go toward a workforce training center at the Savannah Megasite. And surely, since the money was taken from transit, this Megasite will be appropriately pedestrian friendly so as not to make the insult even more stinging. It couldn’t possibly be a typical car-parking-comes-before-all set up.Hmm. Well, surely it’s at least located on a road that allows for good pedestrian access.No? Then at least it’s located in Savannah and probably within close distance to residential density near the walkable city center, as befits a project born from transit money. Well. Damn it.
The Big-City Life, Family Style
| | No Comments
As a family living in Downtown Atlanta, we sometimes end up using the urban space in a creative way. The photo above shows
the top of a nearby parking deck where our son practices riding a
scooter and bicycle. It’s not a cul-de-sac, but it serves the same
purpose. Woodruff Park is our community green space; we share it with a
wide range of visitors. The Curb Market and CVS are good for walking to get
some groceries (though we do end up going outside the neighborhood for
most grocery shopping).
So there are some uniquely urban/downtown things we do that families in more traditional environments might not. But as someone who grew up in the suburbs of Cobb County, I’m mostly surprised by how many things about living here are not different. We know our neighbors (it’s actually a pretty tight knit community of committed residents, which is cool), we know local store owners whose faces we see every week, we know community and city leaders who we’ve met as meetings, we know the parents and administrators at our public school – it’s an average family life. The one thing we miss is having other kids around as residents. In a recent study of 61 large cities in the US, the City of Atlanta (not the whole metro) ranked in the bottom 10 for the percentage of children in the population. We don’t have as many kids in Atlanta overall in comparison to peer cities, but when you’re talking about my family’s Downtown home near Woodruff Park – that’s where kids are really scarce. We see visiting families in the park and on the playground, but that’s about it.What can be done in Atlanta to get more families in the dense core of the city? And should we even do that? I think so – living in a compact environment is, I firmly believe, a responsible thing to do in a world that is seeing population growth AND a population shift toward urbanized areas; we simply can’t continue to sprawl out. We need to fill in, and do so in a walkable context that allows for mobility in means other than personal cars whose infrastructure and parking needs are often at odds with walkability.Part of the answer to the “how do we make this place more kid friendly” question is in good public spaces. In his City Lab piece “The Decline of the Family-Friendly City,” Kaid Benfield writes:“We definitely should include more parks and other green space concurrent
with dense development; while highly urban districts are unlikely to
include large private yards, we should take advantage of vacant lots and
other opportunities to integrate more shared green space into dense
residential neighborhoods.”Shared green spaces, spread more evenly around the city core, would be a great amenity for kids.
Demolition of Atlanta Neighborhoods for Interstate Construction
| | No Comments
Demolition of Atlanta neighborhoods for interstate constructionThe top photo, which comes from the GSU digital collections, shows the area on the southeast side of Atlanta’s center in the 1950s, when demolition was just starting for Interstate 75 & 85. That bottom half of the photo shows parts of the Mechanicsville (on the left) and Summerhill neighborhoods. See a larger version here. The bottom photo shows what we have today. It’s basically unrecognizable, with a decadent amount of car infrastructure having taken over the neighborhoods, while disconnecting them for pedestrian mobility in the process.I wanted to post this today because, while speaking at a forum yesterday on preservation for the Georgia Conservancy, I completely butchered a great quote from Andres Duany about the damage that’s been done to the urban fabric of our cities by highway construction. Here’s what I meant to say:“The
Department of Transportation, in its single-minded pursuit of traffic
flow, has destroyed more American towns than General Sherman.” –
Andres DuanyIt’s absolutely true. Sherman may have burned mid-19th century Atlanta, but in the mid-20th century we took that reconstructed city and dissected and destroyed its center with interstate highways – until what remained of neighborhoods ended up being separated like little islands, all of them fairly dependent on cars for transportation. Walking under interstate overpasses is grim, as I know well; not many people are going to do that.How does this fit into the subject of historic preservation (other than the obvious destruction of buildings directly for the construction of highways)? Because, as a keen audience member pointed out, when you have a city that people traverse mostly in cars, those residents only experience old buildings from a windshield perspective. To appreciate the aesthetic, historic, and place-making value of old architecture, you really need to be out of the car and walking slowly past these blocks.Atlanta has lacked a strong, widespread culture of historic preservation. Big causes with wide appeal – like saving the Fox Theatre – are nice to see, but the more humble buildings that have disappeared over the years have gone down without as much of a fight. I suspect that’s because we haven’t been outside walking these streets. In essence, the destruction of pedestrian-friendliness by way of car infrastructure has “paved the way” (ha!) for an inertia when it comes to preservation. If you don’t experience buildings up close, you don’t care about them as much – and you can’t experience them up close if you’re in a car all the time. EDIT: Kyle Kessler, one of my co-panelists from the Georgia Conservancy event this week, sent me a note about this post. If you look at the bottom image of the modern-day Atlanta above, just left of center, you’ll see a huge rectangle of red earth. That rectangle tells the story of the interstates’ damage to these neighborhoods as well as anything. As Kessler writes:“"The modern-day aerial image shows a big spot of red Georgia clay just south of I-20. This is where the Cooper Street School (built in the 1920s but vacant since the 1970s) stood until sometime last year. The damage caused by interstates is still happening – it took out the housing, which removed the population; and it separated better-off neighborhoods from the worse-off neighborhoods that are still struggling with the economic fall-out of their disconnectedness.“The loss of population and good pedestrian mobility in these neighborhoods – and the way they’ve been geographically and economically separated from the rest of the city – has been acutely felt for decades. It serves as a grim reminder of our past mistakes with the city’s built environment. Can Atlanta leaders find a way to undo the damage?
New Cycle Track Taking Shape on Peachtree Center Avenue
| | No Comments
This new cycle track being installed on Peachtree Center Avenue in
Downtown Atlanta is an example of the type of separated, protected bike
route we need more of in the city. And the best part is that it connects
to existing bike lanes (on Edgewood Ave) and will, in the future intersect with other
bike lanes and paths that are in the works. Not only will
protected lanes like this make cycling safer for existing riders (while
hopefully also cutting down on cars parking in bike lanes**) – they’ll
also generate new riders who don’t necessarily feel safe on a bike in
mixed traffic or on an unprotected lane. As a post on Streetsblog from last year
reported, protected lanes have been shown to bring huge gains in
ridership. According to the post, a multi-city academic study of
protected bike lanes in the US found a very clear trend:When protected bike lanes are added to a street, bike traffic rises — by an average of 75 percent in their first year alone, for the eight projects studied.That’s a huge boost in riders. And while I’m very excited about the
new cycle track and hopeful for increased cycling in the city, after
walking along Peachtree Center Avenue recently, I do have some concerns.
This track passes by several mid-block loading docks and entrances to
parking facilities – meaning that cyclists will be competing with
vehicles that are moving in and out of curb cuts, with no traffic
signals. Also, the way it connects to another new track to the
north on Peachtree Street is confusing and puts cyclists in a strange
traffic flow at a non-signalized intersection that funnels two roads
(one of them on-way) together. There are bound to be hurdles
with the Implementation of bike infrastructure on streets that were
built primarily for cars and not pedestrians or cyclists. But we have to
start somewhere, and I’m excited to see progress made with protected lane. ** As you can see via the TowIt app that geo-locates cars parked in bike lanes, there were in fact several cars parked in this new cycle track prior to the barriers going up this past weekend. h/t Center Forward. Here’s hoping that the new barriers prevent this in the future.
How an Urbanist Views Old Photos
| | No Comments
I was looking at archival photos of Atlanta recently on the awesome GSU Digital Collections site and found this 1957 shot of Ellis Street. The view is facing west toward Peachtree and several small-to-medium buildings are visible. My reaction to seeing this photo was one of sadness, because I know what takes up much of this view now: parking.I’ve shaded a few of the buildings in red and blue, below, to show what has happened to them since they were demolished. These have become either surface lots or parking decks – which is not only a blow to historic preservation, it’s a blow to good urban land use. When you consider that a MARTA rail station (Peachtree Center) and a streetcar line are both at the top of that hill in the distance, a block away, it becomes cleat that this is the wrong way to use these properties.Last year the new owner of that ornate 54 Ellis Street building to the rigth, Atlanta Legal Aid Society, asked the city to let them tear down two old buildings beside it (one is mostly out of view on the far right and another one is unseen here) so that they could build a surface parking lot. The city said “yes” despite the fact that the entire area is covered in parking. Here’s a photo from several months ago, when demolition was underway. Except for the one that’s highlighted in purple, every building in this view a parking deck, and the rest is parking lots. Atlanta is a difficult city for a history buff like myself. Browsing though old photos of Downtown can be disheartening. In the city’s historic center, we’ve lost many, many structures that were built for people, and in their place we have facilities built for storing cars. That this has happened in an otherwise walkable street grid (one of the few in Atlanta) is depressing. That we continue to use land that’s located next to transit lines this way is a kind of failure that infuriates me. Rail transit is a massive investment that should be surrounded by appropriate land uses for capturing a return, and train stations should serve streets that are lined with uses for people, and those people should be able to safely walk around. Instead, pedestrians here have to dodge cars that fly in and out of these parking facilities, and they do it while walking beside blank walls or masses of asphalt. I should probably just stop looking at old photos for the sake of my mental health. But I can’t stop. And I won’t stop hoping that city leaders will realize the importance of working toward a future that sees property owners converting these land use to something more appropriate for the area.
Reducing Car Trips in Atlanta
| | No Comments
Reducing car trips in Atlanta
The quote in this image comes from a Curbed Atlanta interview with Jim Durrett of the Buckhead Community Improvement District (Buckhead is basically the northernmost section of the City of Atlanta). Here’s a longer section from it:There is only so much that can be done to optimize how our streets handle traffic. The next time you lament that you are stuck in traffic, consider that, in fact, you are traffic. That is why we need also to be creating viable options for getting around without use of an automobile and encouraging a healthy mix of office, residential and retail development.I like that instead of just calling for improvement in transportation, he’s pointing out the need for a “healthy mix” of residential, office and retail. You can’t expect good alternatives to car travel to happen unless the built environment is accommodating to safe pedestrian and bicycle mobility. Atlantans often seem to have trouble understanding that relationship between city form and traffic flow, complaining that “MARTA doesn’t go anywhere” and not realizing that it only feels that way because the city sprawls everywhere.Another way of stating this point comes from Fred Kent: “If you plan cities for cars and traffic, you get cars and traffic. If you plan for people and places, you get people and places.”A recent article in the AJC explores the way that the automobile congestion on Atlanta roads is affecting decisions companies make about who they hire and where they locate: “Traffic becomes a factor for Atlanta businesses.” The piece includes this statement about public transit and how it is perceived as not being robust enough for convenient use.“Atlanta motorists and employers alike have long complained that the area’s traffic problems are exacerbated by a largely anemic public transportation system.”I have two things to say about this: 1.) it’s incredible that the word “sprawl” never appears in this article on traffic problems in Atlanta; 2.) the answer to the question “why does Atlanta transit seem anemic” is “sprawl.” When you build environments for large populations in a sprawling, low density pattern, you’re enabling a car-centric way of life. And the roads that connect places in that sprawling pattern are bound to be dangerous for pedestrians.Telecommuting: it helps, but it isn’t the answerThe AJC article goes on to mention telecommuting as a possible salvation for Atlanta’s congestion woes. Reading about telecommuting in recent years, it seems like anti-transit, anti-smart growth types consider it to be a means of conserving the status quo of car-centric development; why promote smart growth and transportation alternative when we can just work from home, right?But a careful look at the numbers shows something surprising: a big rise in telecommuting has not produced a big fall in car congestion.The number of teleworkers in metro Atlanta is up a huge 61 percent since 2010. So traffic congestion should be down during that time period, right? Nope, not according to the stats presented in the AJC piece itself: “What was an average one-way commute of 17 miles and 30 minutes just five years ago grew into an average commute of 18 miles and 34 minutes in 2014.”Teleworking is a great thing and I’m sure it has had a positive effect in getting cars of the road to some extent. But for a sustainable means of reducing car trips, the key will be to make our places more safe, inviting and convenient for walking and cycling. An important component for that goal will be better development, the kind that puts destinations and residences in a thoughtful configuration for multimodal connection.
Newest Census Data Show Steady Population Rise in Atlanta
| | No Comments
The newest population estimates, released this week from the US Census Bureau, show that the City of Atlanta continues to experience a steady amount of population growth.From 2010 to 2014, that’s a respectable 7.85% increase for Atlanta (that’s the city, not the metro). The 1.69% of increase in population from 2013 to 2014 puts Atlanta in line with the increase seen in other big US cities during that time – such as Pheonix, Houston and San Diego – according to this Census infographic. Where Atlanta differs from those three cities is in overall population; while those three now house over a million people, total, we’re still struggling to hit the half million mark. With 17,000 reported vacant properties in the city, and a relatively low population density, it’s clear that Atlanta has room for growth.Creative Loafing has done a good job recently covering the city’s struggle to add new affordable housing, with a recent editorial stating the problem well: The Atlanta Beltline, touted as a great equalizer for residents from all walks of life, has fallen behind its goals to build 5,600 affordable housing units near the smart-growth project. The steps the city has taken — making some developers set aside affordable units in exchange for subsidies — is a drop in the bucket toward fixing the larger problem.When the city can do a better job at encouraging new housing in a compact, walkable format that accommodates walking, transit and cycling mobility – the way sustainable cities should – we may finally hit that 500k mark and beyond.
Atlanta Is Looking for a Chief Bicycle Officer
| | No Comments
Big news today from the Atlanta Bicycle Coalition – the city is now accepting applications for the new position of Chief Bicycle Officer. Read about it on the ABC website. A press release from the office of Mayor Kasim Reed describes the importance of having someone in this position at this time:“From the city’s infrastructure bond spend to the bike sharing program and Atlanta’s engagement with the ‘Mayor’s Challenge for Safer People, Safer Streets’ sponsored by the U.S. Department of Transportation, this is an exciting time for cycling in Atlanta.” It truly is a good time to have someone in the city offices who can advocate for safe cycling routes – with all the new infrastructure being built and the new bike share program coming, it’s smart to “strike while the iron’s hot” by having someone who can help guide these efforts into a cohesive plan.Just earlier this week, in fact, there was an announcement about the Green Lane Project and REI helping to bring two new protected bike lanes to the city; one on Westview Drive – crossing the Westside BeltLine path – and another on the east side at Jesse Hill Jr Drive, which will intersect with existing bike lanes. That kind of connectivity will be key for building growth in the number of Altantans who bike regularly to destinations. Earlier this year, ABC’s executive director Rebecca Serna said that she’d like to see Atlanta “become a city where everyone, not just habitual cyclists, feels comfortable pedaling down the street.” Expanding bike infrastructure, particularly with protected lanes, is going to be a big step toward that goal. Getting a full timer in the city offices to guide the further connections between disconnected pieces of bike lanes is another big step.Photo of the 10th Street cycle track by Ryan Gravel
Can Atlanta Developments Decrease Parking and Embrace Transit?
| | No Comments
A few weeks ago, over 250 commercial real estate pros gathered for the
RealShare Atlanta conference. A couple of comments from two different
panel speakers show that the real estate world sees big changes
happening in Atlanta, with a movement away from car dependency in the
city: “We have to solve the parking problem and get people onto mass transit.” “We believe in mass transit simply because we have to. Urban parking ratios will not go up. We are very focused in Atlanta. It’s important for us that our projects that a MARTA (transit) stop be within two blocks of walking distance.“ Read the full report hereIt’s encouraging to read this coming from RE pros. But the big question
in my mind: will the banks get on board with this reduction in parking
and a move toward transit? I know of several instances where intown
developers wanted to build low (or no) parking for a project, but the
lending banks demanded it, insisting that it would be a liability to build a place without lots of parking in Atlanta. Can low-parking, pro-transit development get
funded in here? When will leaders speak up about it?Though I’m very excited about the plans for transit oriented developments at MARTA stations in general, I’m also concerned about the amount of parking that appears in the early renderings of proposals. Above is an image of what the Brookhaven MARTA station could look like. At the top of the picture, those dark grey blocks that are being cupped by white structures – those are all parking decks. If real estate pros know the need for increased transit use and decreased parking, why is MARTA proposing all this parking in projects at train stations?
You can also see a large amount of parking in the rendering for the
proposed King Memorial Station TOD.
Why not embrace a more innovative type of development that builds a land-use plan in a forward-thinking way? These attached parking decks, if built, will be near impossible to convert to another use in the future. Let’s take advantage of this opportunity to build a better cities (I use the plural because the MARTA transit developments are in multiple metro cities) – and if it’s a bank loan that’s causing the drive for parking here, local political leaders need to step up and intervene as best they can and at least get this problem of funding good urbanism into the public conversation. In the piece I wrote for Architects Newspaper recently, I included a great quote from my colleague-in-urbanism, Matt Garbett “I think urbanists share a vision for the city, but I don’t think we’re
effectively sharing that vision in a way that is shaping the city. We
lack an advocate at the city-wide level who really has the people and
the press’s attention, someone willing to speak about the bad and the
real, sometimes difficult measures that need to be taken to improve.”
Yes to that. The leadership of our local governments needs to step up and voice concern for building good TODs. Want to make affordable housing? Get parking lowered. The more parking that’s built into these developments, the more money they will cost the developers – and that cost gets passed on to the housing prices (dollar amount varies according to land costs and construction style, but generally it costs from $15,000 to $30,000 per space to build structured parking; if there’s one space built per apartment bedroom, that’s a significant increase in housing price). If you’re serious about affordable housing, you need to get serious about reducing parking for housing next to transit.
If We Designed Homes Like We Do Cities …
| | No Comments
“If we designed homes like we do cities, Via James Ham @evolvingcities“This image above is great. By showing a house with most of its floor space set aside for car parking, it illustrates the ridiculous amount of land space with devote to car parking in out urban environments. It reminds me of an image I created a while ago. Below, you can see an area in the center of Downtown Atlanta, with blue highlights over the places that are devoted entirely to car parking (also including the wide roads). See a larger version of it here.
We need city leadership that can truly commit to reducing the amount of land devoted to parking in the city center, where the walkable street grid and transit access are being compromised by the number of cars. The more cars there are moving in and out of parking structures, the less inviting it is to walk around. And the more decks and lots we have taking up valuable land space, the less room there is for uses that accommodate people instead of cars. Particularly in the parts of the city where we’ve made huge investments in mass transit, and where sidewalks are in good supply, we’re just shooting ourselves in the foot by not allowing these spaces to flourish in the way that they could as productive, inviting city neighborhoods.