Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The top end definitely needs something. MAGLEV, LRT, maybe even HRT. One advantage of LRT would be the possibility of directly connecting to employment and residential centers in the Perimeter area.
There's already plans on the books to implement high-capacity passenger rail transit across the Top End of the I-285 Perimeter between Cumberland Mall and the Doraville MARTA Station...It's just that the plans are totally and completely unfunded at this point in time with no potential revenue streams currently identified for funding. http://www.revive285.com/f/TSPSAInfoSheets.pdf
The proposed line appears to be designed to be extended at both ends (...the line appears to be designed to be extended further northwest into Cobb County on its west end and further northeast into Gwinnett County on its east end).
At this point in time, with what appears to be a completely built-out road network and a booming population that shows no signs of an extended slow-down in growth, the best transportation option for the Top End of the I-285 Perimeter would be the implementation of regional heavy rail transit service between the Cartersville area in Bartow County and the Gainesville area in Hall County by way of the stretch of the I-285 Top End Perimeter between Cumberland Mall and the Doraville MARTA Station.
[quote=Born 2 Roll;35184013]There's already plans on the books to implement high-capacity passenger rail transit across the Top End of the I-285 Perimeter between Cumberland Mall and the Doraville MARTA Station...It's just that the plans are totally and completely unfunded at this point in time with no potential revenue streams currently identified for funding. http://www.revive285.com/f/TSPSAInfoSheets.pdf
Revive 285 isn't a plan, but recommendations from research, community-outreach and polls. If it doesn't have money behind it, it isn't a plan.
However, the LRT/BRT in Revive 285 is as I see it complementary versus replaced by maglev on the top-end. LRT/BRT can be used for local travel with more stops if Maglev is used for the equivalent of express. Maglev would also be extendable to Chattanooga, whereas LRT/BRT wouldn't.
Quote:
the best transportation option for the Top End of the I-285 Perimeter would be the implementation of regional heavy rail transit service between the Cartersville area in Bartow County and the Gainesville area in Hall County by way of the stretch of the I-285 Top End Perimeter between Cumberland Mall and the Doraville MARTA Station.
Heavy rail is probably overkill for the top-end at this time. Light rail should probably be good enough. Light rail doesn't mean slow. e.g. DART in Dallas is very fast (much faster than cars). It has to do with how many people are carried per train. Light rail has other benefits such as being able to merge onto and off of streets. Furthermore, most of the rail in metro Atlanta aside from the super-critical rail beltway around the outer metro are spurs into and out of Atlanta. That isn't a great option for the top-end since it shouldn't require switching trains in Atlanta or even going that far out of the way.
I personally believe we need fast more than heavy rail on the top-end. We can even charge higher fees for that. For instance, the Maglev was going to be $4 per ticket. For heavy rail, it would probably make sense to connect on commuter lines into Atlanta, and use something closer to standard MARTA fares.
The only way LRT tips the scales for the Top-End perimeter is the fact that you have two very discrete nodes that would benefit from a streetcar, but also benefit from direct connectivity by running that streetcar at up to 70mph between the nodes and a third node (Doraville, less of a destination). Another consideration is the power. While LRT and HRT are by the numbers similar in capacity, you can't necessarily run a train of 6 LRT vehicles when you're only drawing power from a thin, overhead cable at a low voltage. You either need to bring the voltage up to railway standards (12,000-25,000 volts) or let the vehicles use a third rail. If you go the latter route, you're basically just building HRT with a low floor. The only issue with direct service from the streets to the nodes, is the scheduling. Road traffic is too variable to precisely schedule meets as vehicles in dedicated RoW are, you either needs long dwell times to allow schedule padding, which reduces the average speed of the entire system, or you force a cross-platform transfer in which case you might as well just built HRT for the backbone, meeting LRT literally across the platform.
Revive 285 isn't a plan, but recommendations from research, community-outreach and polls. If it doesn't have money behind it, it isn't a plan.
I agree that the high-capacity transit line proposed in the Revive 285 study is not an active plan, but it does provide a seemingly well-designed outline of almost exactly where to implement high-capacity transit service along the Top End I-285 Perimeter corridor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by netdragon
However, the LRT/BRT in Revive 285 is as I see it complementary versus replaced by maglev on the top-end.
Because Maglev technology does not appear to be compatible with heavy rail transit technology (and because of the concerns that Maglev does not necessarily have the speed, train weight and capacity that are needed for high-capacity corridors), Maglev most likely may not be the best option for the increasingly heavily-populated and heavily-developed I-285 Top End Perimeter corridor.
It is very-important that future Top End Perimeter trains be able to transport the highest numbers of people at the highest speeds that are possible in a very fast-growing, heavily-populated and heavily-developed high-capacity corridor where demand for transit service will continue to grow after its implementation.
Because it will most likely operate within radial high-capacity corridors along with Heavy Rail trains operating to and from Central Atlanta on its east and west ends, it is also very-important that future Top End Perimeter train service be compatible with Heavy Rail Transit technology so that any future regional high-capacity transit system is seamless and continuous in its operation with as few transfers needed as possible between trains.
It makes little sense to have Maglev trains operate on separate tracks from Heavy Rail Transit trains on the same radial corridors. It also makes little sense to have to transfer from a MARTA Heavy Rail Transit train to a Maglev train to be able to continue traveling outbound along a radial high-capacity transit corridor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by netdragon
LRT/BRT can be used for local travel with more stops if Maglev is used for the equivalent of express.
Regional Heavy Rail Transit trains can be used as express trains within a regional HRT network, if necessary, by having selected directional trains serve only the busiest stations along a high-capacity transit corridor during peak hours.
Though, with future HRT trains likely operating at high speeds between stops and with trains operating on staggered schedules (where each directional train may serve different sets of stations along a high-capacity transit corridor), the frequent use of express trains along a high-capacity transit corridor may not always be a necessity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by netdragon
Maglev would also be extendable to Chattanooga, whereas LRT/BRT wouldn't.
With the continuing questions and concerns about the speed capability, weight and carrying capacity of Maglev trains over longer distances, Maglev trains also may not necessarily be the best option to provide regional commuter rail and interurban rail service on a roughly 145-mile-long rail corridor between Downtown Chattanooga and the Atlanta Airport.
Regional high-speed commuter rail and regional high-speed interurban rail trains are most-likely the best technological option to provide regional commuter and interurban passenger rail service over the roughly 145-mile distance between the world-leading Atlanta Airport and Downtown Chattanooga because of the higher speeds that will be necessary between stations along the more sparsely-populated parts of the route.
Quote:
Originally Posted by netdragon
Heavy rail is probably overkill for the top-end at this time. Light rail should probably be good enough. Light rail doesn't mean slow. e.g. DART in Dallas is very fast (much faster than cars). It has to do with how many people are carried per train. Light rail has other benefits such as being able to merge onto and off of streets.
That is a good point about light rail being able to travel onto and off of surface streets.
But with parts of the I-285 Top End Perimeter carrying more than 235,000 vehicles each day; with traffic volumes across the Top End continuing to grow as the population, amount and density of development continues to increase; and with the Perimeter Center area needing a higher-speed grade-separated regional high-capacity passenger rail transit connection to Cobb County and the I-75 NW corridor to the west and Gwinnett County and the I-85 NE corridor to the east...Heavy Rail Transit is not overkill, but has actually been a serious logistical and economical need along the I-285 Top End Perimeter corridor for many years.
With road capacity extremely-limited in the severely-congested greater Perimeter Center area, high-capacity passenger rail transit (regional HRT) on grade-separated tracks would most likely be a much better option than attempting to implement and operate slower-moving Light Rail Transit service on severely-congested surface streets and roads (...LRT service that would be made slower by trying to operate at-grade in traffic on severely-congested surface streets and roads in the road infrastructure-limited Perimeter Center area).
Heavy Rail Transit would also be the best option for the I-285 Top End Perimeter because of the higher carrying capacity of HRT train cars compared to LRT train cars and Bus Rapid Transit.
With the growing population and the growing amount and density of development in and along the I-285 Top End Perimeter corridor, and with a future Top End Perimeter high-capacity passenger rail transit line most likely being extended at both ends (to at least as far as Acworth on the west end and Buford on the east end)...the higher speed and higher carrying capacity of heavy rail trains on grade-separated tracks is sorely needed and will sorely be needed moving forward as the Northside of Metro Atlanta continues to grow at an explosive rate on a completely built-out road network.
Quote:
Originally Posted by netdragon
Furthermore, most of the rail in metro Atlanta aside from the super-critical rail beltway around the outer metro are spurs into and out of Atlanta. That isn't a great option for the top-end since it shouldn't require switching trains in Atlanta or even going that far out of the way.
If you are talking about the existing freight rail tracks into, out of and around the Atlanta area, those should not be much of a concern as any future regional Heavy Rail Transit service will require the construction of new grade-separated tracks that are used only for passenger rail service.
With most existing freight rail trackage operating at and over capacity, any operation of future regional high-speed commuter and interurban passenger rail trains in and through the Atlanta area will also require the construction of new passenger rail-only trackage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by netdragon
I personally believe we need fast more than heavy rail on the top-end.
Heavy Rail Transit can be relatively quite fast for delivering local and local-regional high-capacity passenger rail transit in heavily-populated and heavily-developed areas. If and when necessary, HRT trains can be used for express service between only the absolute busiest stations along the route.
Quote:
Originally Posted by netdragon
We can even charge higher fees for that. For instance, the Maglev was going to be $4 per ticket. For heavy rail, it would probably make sense to connect on commuter lines into Atlanta, and use something closer to standard MARTA fares.
This is an excellent point as I completely agree that we can institute higher fares for premium service like regional express train service and first-class service for the highest-paying choice customers.
But with MARTA's current flat-rate fare structure having helped contributed heavily to the agency's fiscal blight of recent years, it would likely be much-wiser to utilize a distance-based fare structure that charges passengers by how far they ride instead of one flat fare rate for each trip.
(...A distance-based fare with a median rate of about $0.25 per-mile (from as low as $0.10/mile for special and disadvantage groups up to about $0.40/mile for luxury, first-class and premium service) would be much more-effective in helping to fund transit operations than MARTA's current flat-rate fare of $2.50 each trip which charges entirely too-much for shorter transit trips and entirely too-little for longer transit trips.)
Last edited by Born 2 Roll; 06-11-2014 at 03:44 AM..
Whatever technology is used on the top-end, it should be funded by either the state, thru GRTA or all transit agencies in the metro need to be merged into a single transit agency that can operate in all counties in the metro. As it stands now, MARTA cannot operate outside of counties it does not collect sales tax in, exception being the routes to Cumberland and Six Flags.
Heavy rail is probably overkill for the top-end at this time. Light rail should probably be good enough. Light rail doesn't mean slow. e.g. DART in Dallas is very fast (much faster than cars). It has to do with how many people are carried per train. Light rail has other benefits such as being able to merge onto and off of streets. Furthermore, most of the rail in metro Atlanta aside from the super-critical rail beltway around the outer metro are spurs into and out of Atlanta. That isn't a great option for the top-end since it shouldn't require switching trains in Atlanta or even going that far out of the way.
I personally believe we need fast more than heavy rail on the top-end. We can even charge higher fees for that. For instance, the Maglev was going to be $4 per ticket. For heavy rail, it would probably make sense to connect on commuter lines into Atlanta, and use something closer to standard MARTA fares.
Seems legit. Indeed, the train speed of light-rail largely depends on the physical layout of the tracks. In general, the trains move much faster when they do not have to share rights-of-way with cars or make sharp turns.
I have to agree with Born 2 Roll on the general premise that Cobb County leaders may lack experience with transit.
Wrt to BRT off the table (it doesn't seem completely dead yet, but heading that way) I'm sad and happy at the same time. I'd much prefer LRT, but I think BRT was our last hope for Cobb Pkwy for a while (4 years, probably) and now we're back to trying to get American Mag-lev to self-fund a build-out which will only serve some nodes and not the entire urban strip.
Both BRT and LRT on Cobb Pkwy would have probably been much better for the whole cooridor. However, the Cobb plan was weak on connectivity. The one benefit about mag-lev - or anything else on the top-end (I say mag-lev since it was the front-runner plan for the T-SPLOST) - is that it'd solve the connectivity issues. That's better for everyone else NOT in Cobb. So you win some, you lose some, I guess. Regardless of whether we see mag-lev built, perhaps four years from now we may see LRT getting laid on Cobb Pkwy. You can only hope.
Wrt to lack of experience, the commissioners may have book knowledge and traveled to other cities to see their systems, but they haven't put anything in place but buses so there's a lot of nuances to getting it funded, etc, that they are learning the hard way, and being in a tax-averse county makes it harder. What I'm seeing as a result of this, myself, is a vacillation the county does with building something, then three years later it's some new transit idea. It was mag-lev on I-75, then BRT on Cobb Pkwy (which is more useful for local travel) now may be mag-lev again after the BRT completely dies for this SPLOST, since Cobb can get private funding for mag-lev. But that is only going to help nodes for Cobb Pkwy. Eventually, we'll need a full-length streetcar for such a long strip to connect the nodes (just as people realize Peacthree St/Rd does)
I learned from someone that Cobb can't just shove rail in without referendum like it could with the stadium, which is unfortunate, since 2/3 of the county would not directly benefit from the rail until it decreased their mill rate.
I learned from someone that Cobb can't just shove rail in without referendum like it could with the stadium, which is unfortunate, since 2/3 of the county would not directly benefit from the rail until it decreased their mill rate.
Cobb has had a rocky experience with public transit and needs to be nursed into the fold rather than having it rammed down their throat. Folks up that way tend to be pretty independent, self-sufficient types. They are skeptical of big government "solutions" that may do no more than raise their taxes.
It makes little sense to have Maglev trains operate on separate tracks from Heavy Rail Transit trains on the same radial corridors. It also makes little sense to have to transfer from a MARTA Heavy Rail Transit train to a Maglev train to be able to continue traveling outbound along a radial high-capacity transit corridor.
Heavy rail isn't necessarily better for this corridor. First of all, people are going to have to switch tracks anyway, so it doesn't really matter if the train stock matches. Look at where metro North goes into Grand Central. Same station, different stock, no problem. Metro North even has a Harlem stop at 125th.
There are many things that mag-lev (or LRT) can do that is much harder with heavy rail since they have to support heavier trains. For instance, if you are trying to squeeze something into an already cramped highway right of way, it helps to have lighter trains so you can space supports farther apart, and pass above the highway more easily in spots when the ROW needs to switch sides. Also, bigger cars means nothing if the ridership is more spread out and won't fully utilize the large trains.
There are already out-of-service and low use rail spurs out of Atlanta that can be used for heavy rail.
Mag-lev is actually theoretically faster than heavy rail. The Shanghai maglev is a good example of a very fast one already in use.
Operationally, Maglev saves money because it's less expensive to maintain and uses less electricity.
On the downside, Maglev typically has higher upfront costs than other modes.
*SNIP*
There are many things that mag-lev (or LRT) can do that is much harder with heavy rail since they have to support heavier trains. For instance, if you are trying to squeeze something into an already cramped highway right of way, it helps to have lighter trains so you can space supports farther apart, and pass above the highway more easily in spots when the ROW needs to switch sides. Also, bigger cars means nothing if the ridership is more spread out and won't fully utilize the large trains.
Actually modern HRT trains are about as light as you can get. They don't have to conform to the FRA's crash regulations that they saddle real passenger trains with so they are about as light as they can get without sagging when you walk on the floors. The only other real savings comes with the elimination of motors and wheels.
Quote:
There are already out-of-service and low use rail spurs out of Atlanta that can be used for heavy rail.
What out of service or low use rail spurs out of Atlanta???
Quote:
*SNIP*
Operationally, Maglev saves money because it's less expensive to maintain and uses less electricity.
That's not necessarily true, as you also have to support the weight of the train which requires energy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
