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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-03-2017, 09:58 AM
 
Location: Vinings
6,333 posts, read 3,415,561 times
Reputation: 3526

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by magnetar View Post
The technology is copyrighted by China Railway, began development in 2013, won't be operational until next year, and isn't available from any US manufacturers, so to say that it's faster and cheaper to implement in Atlanta is assuming a lot based on no evidence.
I mean, it's essentially an articulated bus with a special body paneling made to look just like an LRT train (with the wheels hidden), and AV guidance tech. All of which we already have here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-03-2017, 10:03 AM
 
Location: Vinings
6,333 posts, read 3,415,561 times
Reputation: 3526
Another good use of this in Atlanta/MARTA, would be as a replacement for the 110 Peachtree bus line. Where you'd brand it as a light rail line, from Five Points to Brookhaven all on Peachtree, with nice new stations with names, and it's all on the map.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2017, 10:07 AM
 
29,359 posts, read 26,306,390 times
Reputation: 10264
Quote:
Originally Posted by magnetar View Post
The technology is copyrighted by China Railway, began development in 2013, won't be operational until next year, and isn't available from any US manufacturers, so to say that it's faster and cheaper to implement in Atlanta is assuming a lot based on no evidence.
If I know China, getting this promptly manufactured and delivered to the US will be no problem at all. They'll have it here before we can get the press releases out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2017, 10:11 AM
 
Location: Prescott, AZ
5,554 posts, read 3,041,569 times
Reputation: 2254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Columbia Scientist View Post
No single mode of transit/transportation will solve Atlanta's problems. BRT is good. Rail is good. Streetcars are good. AV's are good. A multi-nodal approach is needed. This new technology would bring the vision of what the Beltline is going to be quicker to reality. This would be great from Buford Highway as well. Could these run on CNG?
No, it won't. As I already said, these would require wider right of way and much, much more non-natural surfaces (read: pavement), which goes against the BeltLine's purpose. Additionally, as magnetar said, it's assuming an awful lot to think that this is a faster option to implement. This mode doesn't allow the capacity needed for the BeltLine, and other light-rail routes since you can't couple vehicles. It doesn't have the long-term energy or maintenance efficiency of trains. It doesn't maintain the development attracting / concentrating nature of rail in areas where there isn't room for dedicated right of way transit.

Basically, it costs the same, if not more, than BRT, but has less capacity and long-term cost benefits than LRT & even streetcars.


Quote:
Originally Posted by arjay57 View Post
"Must. Not. Think. Outside. Box."
There's a difference between thinking outside the box, and just creating a worse box. This is a worse box.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2017, 10:19 AM
 
Location: Vinings
6,333 posts, read 3,415,561 times
Reputation: 3526
It sounds silly, but if MARTA buses looked like that, more people would ride them. Without the AV, I mean. Just purely the aesthetics of it. Just because it looks like a train.

Of course, to go with it they'd also need to have it operate more like a train, with a lot of staying straight on one road instead of turning, and far fewer, but nicer stops.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2017, 10:45 AM
 
29,359 posts, read 26,306,390 times
Reputation: 10264
Send these babies down major roads like Memorial, Ponce, Cascade, Roswell, Northside, Buford Highway and Piedmont.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2017, 12:43 PM
 
Location: St Simons Island, GA
23,055 posts, read 35,012,419 times
Reputation: 15192
Quote:
Originally Posted by fourthwarden View Post
No, it won't. As I already said, these would require wider right of way and much, much more non-natural surfaces (read: pavement), which goes against the BeltLine's purpose. Additionally, as magnetar said, it's assuming an awful lot to think that this is a faster option to implement. This mode doesn't allow the capacity needed for the BeltLine, and other light-rail routes since you can't couple vehicles. It doesn't have the long-term energy or maintenance efficiency of trains. It doesn't maintain the development attracting / concentrating nature of rail in areas where there isn't room for dedicated right of way transit.

Basically, it costs the same, if not more, than BRT, but has less capacity and long-term cost benefits than LRT & even streetcars.




There's a difference between thinking outside the box, and just creating a worse box. This is a worse box.
So you keep saying, but hasn't rail been included in the Beltline plan all along? And from what I've seen, it's being designed to accommodate this eventuality already.
Wider right-of-way? Please elaborate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2017, 01:02 PM
 
Location: Prescott, AZ
5,554 posts, read 3,041,569 times
Reputation: 2254
Quote:
Originally Posted by LovinDecatur View Post
So you keep saying, but hasn't rail been included in the Beltline plan all along? And from what I've seen, it's being designed to accommodate this eventuality already.
Wider right-of-way? Please elaborate.
I'm confused on your confusion. The BeltLine has always been about transit, yes, but rail was chosen due to right of way constraints, especially with the trail added in.

Yes the BeltLine is being designed & built to accommodate rail, but that's after initial analysis made the decision that rail is what would work best in the corridor.

This is because buses, even guided ones, require physically wider spaces to be able to safely operate. This was one of the issues that came up during the Connect 400 studies, where heavy rail was found to require less land to build than BRT would have needed. Similar thing on the BeltLine. BRT, including this guided busway thing, would need more room to operate than a streetcar or light rail vehicle.

That leaves less space for plants, the trail, and art, while also meaning there is less margin of safety.

All so you can run a system that doesn't carry the same capacity as light rail, and likely costs much more than BRT.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2017, 01:14 PM
Status: "Apparently not a person." (set 24 days ago)
 
5,078 posts, read 3,302,123 times
Reputation: 3372
Quote:
Originally Posted by fourthwarden View Post
I'm confused on your confusion. The BeltLine has always been about transit, yes, but rail was chosen due to right of way constraints, especially with the trail added in.

Yes the BeltLine is being designed & built to accommodate rail, but that's after initial analysis made the decision that rail is what would work best in the corridor.

This is because buses, even guided ones, require physically wider spaces to be able to safely operate. This was one of the issues that came up during the Connect 400 studies, where heavy rail was found to require less land to build than BRT would have needed. Similar thing on the BeltLine. BRT, including this guided busway thing, would need more room to operate than a streetcar or light rail vehicle.

That leaves less space for plants, the trail, and art, while also meaning there is less margin of safety.

All so you can run a system that doesn't carry the same capacity as light rail, and likely costs much more than BRT.
The "trains" in the OP appear to have the same form factor as a typical light rail train. Why would they require more ROW?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2017, 01:42 PM
 
29,359 posts, read 26,306,390 times
Reputation: 10264
Those old boys in China don't mess around.
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:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - 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 - Top