Clifton Corridor Route Alternatives

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by bu2

It is a new line, but the fact that they are planning to tunnel nearly all of it says light rail is a poor choice. Ridership on the early studies was half that of HRT. And it doesn't "seamlessly" blend into the Beltline. For quite a while, it will be a separate system (assuming it gets built anytime soon).

I agree it makes no sense for 400 North, I-20 East or I-20 West.

Heavy rail was also going to be twice as expensive. As I already explained, the base price for heavy rail is nearly double that of the Clifton Corridor, even with the tunnels. When you add in tunneling for heavy rail, then things get even more costly.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by primaltech

Third rail powered trains look sexier, and heavy rail has that sweet acceleration and deceleration (with that cool sound), but the higher capacity is not needed for this corridor. Yes, Emory area has a lot of jobs and is busy and needs a train, but it's not skyscrapers and density. The lack of a grid network and highways in that area is to blame for the bad traffic there.

Atlanta got heavy rail because light rail didn't seem to really exist at that time. And heavy rail was apparently cheaper for some reason, and had more federal matching dollars offered. Also, the city actually had a higher population in the 70's, and a lot more people (and a whole lot higher % of metro population) lived near the proposed train system.

At this point, modern rail systems are the best way to go for our new lines, as in modern versions of commuter rail and light rail and bus rapid transit. Heavy rail is good though for extending existing lines, and infill stations on them.

Would have been nice had MARTA heavy rail been able to have been built out to a larger size when the system was built. A short-sighted mistake. Sad that provisions were left and unused.

Capacity isn't the issue. Its connectivity and ridership. A stub line like this forcing transfers doesn't make much sense.

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by bu2

Capacity isn't the issue. Its connectivity and ridership. A stub line like this forcing transfers doesn't make much sense.

Which is why it can, I don't know, be integrated into the wider BeltLine and core LRT network that we're building.

[MattCW]

Originally Posted by bu2

Capacity isn't the issue. Its connectivity and ridership. A stub line like this forcing transfers doesn't make much sense.

Someone has to transfer, transit can't go from everywhere to everywhere.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by MattCW

Someone has to transfer, transit can't go from everywhere to everywhere.

But this is a stub that forces virtually every rider to be a transfer rider. That's probably why they scrapped the original Beltline concept that was simply a circle.

[magnetar]

Originally Posted by bu2

But this is a stub that forces virtually every rider to be a transfer rider. That's probably why they scrapped the original Beltline concept that was simply a circle.

Current plans still call for a "central loop", in addition to other lines that will share the Beltline ROW for part of their routes. And according to this plan, the Clifton corridor would be a separate line anyway.

[bu2]

https://www.itsmarta.com/uploadedfil...inal_Wordu.pdf

Doesn't format well, but this is the summary of the comments from the 2014 public meetings-lots of concerns about the at grade plan they had at that time:

Table E-1: Summary of Topics Noted in Scoping Comments
Comment Type Total Comments in favor of tunnel rather than at-grade, or stating only tunnel would be supported 45 Comments about property impacts or property acquisitions 36 Comments about general support of the project 28 Comments about traffic impacts 19 Comments about impacts to residential neighborhoods 16 Comments stating more project info is needed or requested 8 Comments about noise impacts 8 Comments in favor of a station at DeKalb Farmers Market 6 Comments about impact to property values 6 Comments/questions about how the project will be funded 6 Comments about or supporting Design Option C (tunnel through Emory/CDC area) 6 Comments about supporting/opposing a Lenox Road station 4 Comments about why the alignment is shown north, rather than south of CSX rail 4 Comments regarding sharing of road right-of-way (ROW) for LRT, or comments about dedicated ROW 4 Comments stating preference for Alternative 2, or that it would be easier to implement than Alternative 1 4 Comments regarding using other modes than LRT 3 Comments about maximizing access to high employment centers 3 Comments regarding impacts to historic properties 3 Comments about impacts to the railroad crossing at Lenox Rd. 3 Comments generally stating opposition to the project 3 Comments about using/expanding existing bus routes that serve the area 2 Comments about vibration/seismic impacts (including construction-related) 2 Comments about environmental impacts 2 Total 225