Clifton Corridor Route Alternatives (Atlanta, Lenox: 2014, live, centers)

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by bu2

With the amount of tunneling in their current LPA, that is not particularly relevant.

HRT was once again part of the LPA Alternatives and once again it lost. Why can't you get past this?

[primaltech]

Light rail in its own right of way in a deep bore tunnel, is more like Medium rail. And there's nothing that says it can't necessarily have third rail for power, especially if it's mostly underground.

The acceleration is going to be slower, and the capacity smaller, but that's OK. LRT will be the right amount of capacity for this corridor. This corridor is not Midtown.

[jsvh]

"medium rail", ha! I like it! Think the line between heavy rail and light rail really is starting to blur with a lot of these projects.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by cqholt

HRT was once again part of the LPA Alternatives and once again it lost. Why can't you get past this?

I actually live in the area.

And in most of these things, they come up with an answer and then fit the data to match. These transit things typically use ridiculous point systems as this one did, arbitrarily labeling things high, low and medium. Their documents gave very limited data. Ones I've read from other areas do a far better job. And we all know Atlanta is one of the most corrupt places in the country, so you can't expect honest answers without digging.

Nothing is done until the final environmental statement is done and they aren't close to that. Then after that they still have to get funding.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by jsvh

"medium rail", ha! I like it! Think the line between heavy rail and light rail really is starting to blur with a lot of these projects.

Even more so with the cost.

[MattCW]

Originally Posted by primaltech

Light rail in its own right of way in a deep bore tunnel, is more like Medium rail.

I have said basically this kind of thing before. Modern LRT systems (like DART or Portland) can serve as fast and efficiently as HRT, but with the flexibility of streetcars.

And there's nothing that says it can't necessarily have third rail for power, especially if it's mostly underground.

Well, there's really no reason to use third rail. It's the same voltage, has basically the same power capacity, but it's safer for workers both on the tracks and on the vehicles (in most DC power systems, all the vehicles' contact points are energized if one is).

The acceleration is going to be slower, and the capacity smaller, but that's OK. LRT will be the right amount of capacity for this corridor. This corridor is not Midtown.

Eh, acceleration really isn't that much slower and if built right, capacity isn't as much of an issue either. But I agree 100% on the middle sentence, LRT should adequately serve the capacity required in this corridor.

[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.

[aries4118]

Originally Posted by jsvh

"medium rail", ha! I like it! Think the line between heavy rail and light rail really is starting to blur with a lot of these projects.

Medium rail or light metro is actually a thing. I think it should be (and/or should have been) a primary consideration with all of our transit planning.

See below:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medi...ansport_system

[cqholt]

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.

3rd rail would require larger stations, so riders would not have to cross or interact with the 3rd rail.

[MattCW]

LRT doesn't accelerate any slower than HRT, it's the same power.