Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-26-2018, 09:19 AM
 
Location: Kirkwood
23,726 posts, read 24,731,164 times
Reputation: 5702

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by primaltech View Post
It appears you're missing that the regional transit system is going to be called ATL. Atlanta-region Transit Link. Atlanta Transit Link I guess for a shorter title.

The final bill from GA congress creating ATL will be out next week, and that's what it's going to be called, likely for the rest of your life. So I'm not trying to discourage your creative ideas, but I feel like it's a little distracting or confusing with copy pasting all that "mat" stuff. I just mean for people who might be coming into this thread for the first time, not knowing what's actually going on meanwhile in the actual reality.

I will grant you that that general kind of naming convention is probably how they will brand the different services of ATL transit. Like, rapid bus will probably be called 'ATL Rapid'. With like a 'Rapid Line A', Rapid Line B', etc. And probably the streetcar system will be renamed from Atlanta Streetcar to ATL Streetcar. Etc.

Now as for the possibility of the heavy rail lines/trains switching from third rail to overhead power and therefore allowing grade crossings and cheaper construction on line extensions and new lines, I think it's an interesting and intriguing idea. Doing that could open up some real possibilities, and could reduce transfers.

It would still be classified heavy rail I think, but it could act like commuter rail or light rail, and be as cheap to build as those.

It wouldn't be technically considered commuter rail, because it would not be FRA-compliant. MARTA cars are not FRA-compliant, regardless of power source. So it could never use railroad tracks or share with freight.

And it wouldn't have the seat capacity or comfort of commuter rail. It would still be metro-style transit.

It also wouldn't technically be light rail, because light rail really involves a lighter vehicle. But it would be basically like light rail.

I mean, I think they should really look into it. Particularly OTP suburbs, who want compatibility with the existing MARTA rail system, and not forcing transfers, but while also keeping cost lower.

It does take a minute for the train to switch modes, but in theory that could be done while it's stopped at a station, like while stopped at Doraville, while passengers board.

That's why I gave the example of Gwinnett possibly doing a 'light rail' out to Sugarloaf (as they've studied and done those design plans for), that would be the Gold line all the way to the airport, without a transfer.

Clayton should do it that way for their line. The line would run from Five Points or maybe even north of there, all the way to Jonesboro. With the new section running on overhead power, adjacent to the railroad, but not sharing tracks with it. Sort of like a CRT/HRT/LRT hybrid type thing. With cheap, minimalist stations, and all that savings.

Cobb could maybe do it, for a new line, that would potentially also be the Clifton corridor line.

Lot of different possibilities.

And I know for a fact that MARTA has mentioned it at least once or twice before, and I believe the dual-power capability is part of their RFQ for their new fleet of rail cars. (Could be mistaken on that.)
Currently the only transit line in the US with this capability is MTBA Blue Line. It switches power source while stopped at Airport Station https://youtu.be/RzYhNQ3-D9Q. It operates fully grade separate the rest of it's route to Wonderland Station.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-26-2018, 10:51 AM
 
Location: Seattle, WA
9,830 posts, read 7,190,769 times
Reputation: 7773
Quote:
Originally Posted by cqholt View Post
Currently the only transit line in the US with this capability is MTBA Blue Line. It switches power source while stopped at Airport Station https://youtu.be/RzYhNQ3-D9Q. It operates fully grade separate the rest of it's route to Wonderland Station.
Well, I mean if the Gold line HRT were to run into Gwinnett County fully grade-separated, then doing it with overhead power wouldn't really accomplish much or save much.

The reason to do it would be so that it could run along the ground and have level crossings with roads.

It probably wouldn't be able to run on a road like light rail. And you wouldn't want that. You wouldn't have heavy rail trains running the median of Satellite Blvd or something. Like actual light rail could.

But, it could have road crossings. So it could run alongside a railroad corridor (as long as the tracks don't mix), without needing to bridge or tunnel at crossings like this:

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9522...7i13312!8i6656

Potential serious cost savings.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2018, 03:27 PM
bu2
 
23,886 posts, read 14,684,834 times
Reputation: 12696
Quote:
Originally Posted by primaltech View Post
Well, I mean if the Gold line HRT were to run into Gwinnett County fully grade-separated, then doing it with overhead power wouldn't really accomplish much or save much.

The reason to do it would be so that it could run along the ground and have level crossings with roads.

It probably wouldn't be able to run on a road like light rail. And you wouldn't want that. You wouldn't have heavy rail trains running the median of Satellite Blvd or something. Like actual light rail could.

But, it could have road crossings. So it could run alongside a railroad corridor (as long as the tracks don't mix), without needing to bridge or tunnel at crossings like this:

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9522...7i13312!8i6656

Potential serious cost savings.
Well if it were a short extension, it could follow the railroad ROW along Buford Hwy as it does now and then perhaps head down the railroad spur just south of Jimmy Carter to an end point near I-85. There could be a ramp from the interstate as there is at North Springs and Indian Creek.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2018, 03:42 PM
bu2
 
23,886 posts, read 14,684,834 times
Reputation: 12696
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_by_ridership

This list was interesting. There are 15 heavy rail systems in the US in 12 different metro areas.

By miles:
NY CTA 245 miles
Washington MATA 117 miles
BART 112 miles
Chicago TA 103 miles
MARTA 48 miles
MBTA Boston 38
SEPTA Philadelphia 37
Miami Metrorail 24
RTA Cleveland 19
LA Metro Rail 17
Baltimore 15
PATCO Philadelphia 14
Staten Island 14
PATH NJ-NY 14
San Juan 11

Given that Atlanta is already 5th (6th if you add the two Philadelphia area systems), it would not indicate a massive expansion of heavy rail was justified. The top 4 are all very dense, with DC subsidized by the federal government.

With light rail systems ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_by_ridership ),
only Dallas (93 miles) and Los Angeles (88 miles) have substantially more miles than MARTA's heavy rail. Philadelphia (68 miles), Portland (60 miles), Denver (59 miles) and San Diego (53 miles) also have more mileage, although that includes some mileage that is more like a streetcar.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2018, 05:07 PM
 
6,329 posts, read 11,871,676 times
Reputation: 5095
Quote:
Originally Posted by bu2 View Post
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_by_ridership

This list was interesting. There are 15 heavy rail systems in the US in 12 different metro areas.

By miles:
NY CTA 245 miles
Washington MATA 117 miles
BART 112 miles
Chicago TA 103 miles
MARTA 48 miles
MBTA Boston 38
SEPTA Philadelphia 37
Miami Metrorail 24
RTA Cleveland 19
LA Metro Rail 17
Baltimore 15
PATCO Philadelphia 14
Staten Island 14
PATH NJ-NY 14
San Juan 11

Given that Atlanta is already 5th (6th if you add the two Philadelphia area systems), it would not indicate a massive expansion of heavy rail was justified. The top 4 are all very dense, with DC subsidized by the federal government.

With light rail systems ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_by_ridership ),
only Dallas (93 miles) and Los Angeles (88 miles) have substantially more miles than MARTA's heavy rail. Philadelphia (68 miles), Portland (60 miles), Denver (59 miles) and San Diego (53 miles) also have more mileage, although that includes some mileage that is more like a streetcar.
Yeah, looks like San Diego Trolley has almost the same mileage as MARTA (just 5 miles more). Imagine if you had the Atlanta Streetcar to travel the same routes instead of the MARTA HRT lines. That is what San Diego's Trolley is like, which is why it felt like it was more limiting and most people are better off driving. The only plus about San Diego is it has two commuter rail lines.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2018, 06:26 AM
 
Location: Kirkwood
23,726 posts, read 24,731,164 times
Reputation: 5702
Quote:
Originally Posted by bu2 View Post
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_by_ridership

This list was interesting. There are 15 heavy rail systems in the US in 12 different metro areas.

By miles:
NY CTA 245 miles
Washington MATA 117 miles
BART 112 miles
Chicago TA 103 miles
MARTA 48 miles
MBTA Boston 38
SEPTA Philadelphia 37
Miami Metrorail 24
RTA Cleveland 19
LA Metro Rail 17
Baltimore 15
PATCO Philadelphia 14
Staten Island 14
PATH NJ-NY 14
San Juan 11

Given that Atlanta is already 5th (6th if you add the two Philadelphia area systems), it would not indicate a massive expansion of heavy rail was justified. The top 4 are all very dense, with DC subsidized by the federal government.

With light rail systems ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_by_ridership ),
only Dallas (93 miles) and Los Angeles (88 miles) have substantially more miles than MARTA's heavy rail. Philadelphia (68 miles), Portland (60 miles), Denver (59 miles) and San Diego (53 miles) also have more mileage, although that includes some mileage that is more like a streetcar.
From this I gather that Atlanta needs the land use to match the existing transit and more infill lines and stations in the core.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2018, 10:06 AM
 
Location: Kirkwood
23,726 posts, read 24,731,164 times
Reputation: 5702
2 days left in legislative session
Quote:
The board and its membership looks a little different in each bill – differences the committee will have to work out. Among the other issues the conference committee must resolve:

*State revenue: The House bill would add millions in state funding from an airport concessions tax and a 50-cent fee for taxi, limousine and ride-hailing service rides.

*Gwinnett County: HB 930 would allow Gwinnett to hold a referendum on joining MARTA this year. Other counties would have to wait until next year for transit referendums – after the new board is up and running.

*Cobb County: The original version of HB 930 included a special district in Cobb that could levy a transit tax without committing the rest of the county to a transit expansion it may not want. Disagreement over the size of the district led the House to remove the provision, but negotiations continued.

*Fulton County: The House bill included a provision that would allow Fulton to levy a .2-percent transit tax. The county already has a .75-percent sales tax devoted to roads and bridges.
https://www.myajc.com/news/state--re...I1AwQFNXIex4J/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2018, 11:26 AM
 
4,010 posts, read 3,728,791 times
Reputation: 1967




This is what I would do.


I think Armour Yard (AY) should be the New MMPT instead of in downtown. The CSX line in Gwinnett and Cobb could transfer there. The NS line could also connect there with a couple of stops at Atlantic Station. I think it would be cheaper

I would extend Doraville line into Gwinnett via Commuter Rail. They can just transfer at Doraville. Yes I know people may not like transferring but its better than driving and its time for people here to get into the big city mindset instead of having a country mindset as far as transportation goes.

The Lawrenceville/Dacula line can also connect into AY via Emory.

The same goes with the Cobb County lines.

On the Southside commuter rail can just connect to the College Park Station.


I think this will be cheaper than building MMPT in Downtown. Just add the AY MARTA Station and connect all the commuter lines to AY


What do you think?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2018, 11:41 AM
 
Location: Kirkwood
23,726 posts, read 24,731,164 times
Reputation: 5702
Quote:
Originally Posted by fieldm View Post



This is what I would do.


I think Armour Yard (AY) should be the New MMPT instead of in downtown. The CSX line in Gwinnett and Cobb could transfer there. The NS line could also connect there with a couple of stops at Atlantic Station. I think it would be cheaper

I would extend Doraville line into Gwinnett via Commuter Rail. They can just transfer at Doraville. Yes I know people may not like transferring but its better than driving and its time for people here to get into the big city mindset instead of having a country mindset as far as transportation goes.

The Lawrenceville/Dacula line can also connect into AY via Emory.

The same goes with the Cobb County lines.

On the Southside commuter rail can just connect to the College Park Station.


I think this will be cheaper than building MMPT in Downtown. Just add the AY MARTA Station and connect all the commuter lines to AY


What do you think?
Armour is not major employment center. You are going to lose riders because everyone is going to have to transfer. The whole idea behind the MMPT was to leverage private development above the station or around it to fund the station. It's literally a parking lot, how can that be more expensive than having to purchase property with structures and tear them down? Forget the grand MMPT idea, build some mixed use towers above it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2018, 11:46 AM
 
4,010 posts, read 3,728,791 times
Reputation: 1967
Quote:
Originally Posted by cqholt View Post
Armour is not major employment center. You are going to lose riders because everyone is going to have to transfer. The whole idea behind the MMPT was to leverage private development above the station or around it to fund the station. It's literally a parking lot, how can that be more expensive than having to purchase property with structures and tear them down? Forget the grand MMPT idea, build some mixed use towers above it.
I agree. Thanks
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top