Atlanta’s relationship with the automobile is reaching a crossroads. (Dallas: 2014, cost of)

[architect77]

Originally Posted by cqholt

https://www.citylab.com/transportati...the-us/551408/

I provided this link a few days ago, and if you read it you'll see why the 2nd ave project is so expensive.

It's not typical or a good example to support costs in America.

It's so expensive because of double-hieight canvernous platforms and station elements far bigger that what the rest of the world builds and all of its grandious-ness just happens to be at the most crowded and difficult spot in the world for such extravagance.

[architect77]

Originally Posted by jetgraphics

Bottom line : if all costs were made visible, the most efficient form of land transport would be electric traction rail (steel wheel on steel rail) in all its various forms.
1. Rolling resistance (20:1 advantage)
2. Surface (train cars can move more passengers per unit surface area per unit time)
3. Speed (can exceed 200 mph)
4. Pollution (minimal)
5. Durability (track and rolling stock longevity can exceed half a century and more)

How long do the cars sit at stations for 18,000 to board?

And where in Atlanta are 18,000 all going in the same direction much less the same destination?

Trains all over the world don't even break even with operating expenses and are propped up by goverments.

Everything about rail is very expensive from skilled maintenance to the track constantly wearing down and needing replacement (NYC hasn't ever caught up).

And all of this theoretical capacity talk is laughable in engineering circles without real-world conditions taken into consideration and factored in.


I'll bet the 80,000 Asian lines are going between 2 very crowded places that have nothing that can be translated to here.


If rail was more efficient, states wouldn't have said no thanks to the billions offered in high speed rail grants 9 years ago.

[architect77]

Originally Posted by jetgraphics

Bottom line : if all costs were made visible, the most efficient form of land transport would be electric traction rail (steel wheel on steel rail) in all its various forms.
1. Rolling resistance (20:1 advantage)
2. Surface (train cars can move more passengers per unit surface area per unit time)
3. Speed (can exceed 200 mph)
4. Pollution (minimal)
5. Durability (track and rolling stock longevity can exceed half a century and more)

Our existing bad congestion is the reason for State Farm, NCR, and Mercedes plopping new headquarters near MARTA rail lines and stations.

We are moving in the direction you want because it's the only option left.

Companies are changing the direction of the area's transit focus and priorities and it's happening organically.

I don't know how you were interpreting that same statement with your red type responses.


And there's so much more involved and required to move large amounts of people safely. All of the life safety, ingress, exgress requirements for packed trains, fire protection, terrorist threats, climate control, tracks deforming in heat waves.

All cars will soon be electric polluting the same as trains, we have plenty of space not to care about how many people can be moved in the least amount of space,

speed is limited by deceleration approaching stops more than anything else. Only briefly can Acela travel at 140 mph along the Northeast corridor

You're crazy if you think rail tracks, etc. last longer than concrete highways which require no maintenance for decades and are cheaper per mile to build also.

Gas mileage requirements have resulted in improved tires, weights, and less-polluting cars by more than double in the last decade.


A typical push lawnmower pollutes the same as 50 or a 100 new cars today thanks to their ultra low emissions.

Rail cars cost $1.5 $2 million each and so many spare cars are needed that that linked story reveals that an entire duplicate tunnel runs beside the new 2nd ave tunnels just to store the spare cars.


that was a total shock to me.

NYC can't solve the overcrowded trains problem with the simple solution of adding 1-2 additional cars at each end.

Because it would extend beyond the platforms and it would take too long for people move to adjacent cars exiting onto platform.

Time is perhaps the biggest price paid when you're at the mercy of the general public's attentiveness.

In fact the time required to travel this way making transfers and navigating stations & platforms is often much more than driving or biking, even walking.

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by architect77

How long do the cars sit at stations for 18,000 to board?

Based on a 2 minute headway, no more than 2 minutes.
As to how many would board in those 2 minutes . . .

18000 / 30 = 600.
That pretty much fills up a train with 720 passenger max capacity.
Of course, that's an extreme example.

More likely the distribution would vary over each stop, though the cumulative tally may be 18,000 per hour.


LET US CONSIDER - - -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Subway
Annual ridership . . . 1,707,555,714 (2013)
Number of vehicles . . . 6,384

Daily ridership
5,465,034 (weekdays, 2013)
3,243,495 (Saturdays, 2013)
2,563,022 (Sundays, 2013)

Average passenger load per car per day; round trips
Annual . . . . . . . 733 . . 366
Weekday . . . . . 856 . . 428
Saturdays . . . . 508 . . 254
Sundays . . . . . 401 . . 201


Headway
Peak hours: 2–5 minutes
Off-peak: 10–20 minutes

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by architect77

Trains all over the world don't even break even with operating expenses and are propped up by goverments.

That only proves that governments are not adept at managing enterprises profitably.

https://www.theatlantic.com/china/ar...system/279528/

The Mass Transit Railway (MTR) Corporation, which manages the subway and bus systems on Hong Kong Island and, since 2006, in the northern part of Kowloon, is considered the gold standard for transit management worldwide. In 2012, the MTR produced revenue of 36 billion Hong Kong Dollars (about U.S $5 billion)—turning a profit of $2 billion in the process.

[architect77]

this young person explains some things and fails to mention that NYC Subway is the nation's 5th largest debtor and currently owes almost $30 billion that was borrowed for new rail cars when they replaced the graffiti riddled system back in the early 1980's.

Every year the servicing of that debt takes 20% of MTA's funds and they make no progress in paying down the balance.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLtmJHHqbh8

[architect77]

Originally Posted by jetgraphics

That only proves that governments are not adept at managing enterprises profitably.

https://www.theatlantic.com/china/ar...system/279528/

The Mass Transit Railway (MTR) Corporation, which manages the subway and bus systems on Hong Kong Island and, since 2006, in the northern part of Kowloon, is considered the gold standard for transit management worldwide. In 2012, the MTR produced revenue of 36 billion Hong Kong Dollars (about U.S $5 billion)—turning a profit of $2 billion in the process.

Space is so limited in Hong Kong that people pay $600 to live in a 4'x5' coffin apts. with roaches and bedbugs crawling all over them.

Site-specific conditions that help turn a profit in one special situation means nothing to the rest of the world.

You are defending a point for the hell of it and you know it.

It's juvenile to force it as the perfect solution here above all else.

Light rail on rubber wheels would be more flexible and cheaper than light or heavy rail.

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by architect77

You're crazy if you think rail tracks, etc. last longer than concrete highways which require no maintenance for decades and are cheaper per mile to build also.

From the net:
Concrete v Asphalt : lifespan estimate - 30 years v. 15 years, with periodic maintenance (patching) before complete replacement. But in high traffic areas, repavement schedules are as short as every 5 years.
(As to "no maintenance" perhaps you are referring to the State of Potholes, aka Pennsylvania)

The typical lifespan for rail is 40 years. You see 80 or 100 year old rail around on low-traffic RR lines. Latest rail bed technology uses concrete sleepers and their performance is expected to exceed the older modes.

...
Cost per mile for rail
http://publictransport.about.com/od/...nd-Operate.htm
Recent commuter rail start up costs have ranged from $1.3 million per mile for Nashville's Music City Star (a line which is mostly single-tracked) to a high of $26 million per mile for the Seattle Sounder.
....
Cost per mile for pavement
http://www.newamerica.net/publicatio...d_superhighway
The average construction cost per lane, per mile for highways was $2.3 million.
An eight lane highway would cost $18.4 million per mile.
{Remember, a single track has the potential carrying capacity of 9 lanes of superhighway.}
. . .
I grant that each construction project is affected by local politics and can vary widely.

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by architect77

Space is so limited in Hong Kong that people pay $600 to live in a 4'x5' coffin apts. with roaches and bedbugs crawling all over them.

Site-specific conditions that help turn a profit in one special situation means nothing to the rest of the world.

You are defending a point for the hell of it and you know it.

It's juvenile to force it as the perfect solution here above all else.

Light rail on rubber wheels would be more flexible and cheaper than light or heavy rail.

I apologize if facts that refute your beliefs are annoying.

But rubber wheels on steel rails do NOT have the same efficiency as steel wheels on steel rails. That is certainly changing the argument to suit yourself.

When people have a choice, they tend to choose the least expensive means to fulfill their desires and needs.

Once all subsidies and taxes are removed, the fact remains that "old fashioned" steel wheel on steel rail outperforms all other forms of land transportation.

Adapting that format to cities to maximize benefits is another topic.

The fact that Atlanta's surface area is finite and fixed, while population keeps growing, and thus transportation needs keep growing, makes it self evident that the automobile / petroleum / pavement paradigm is not supportable for the long term.

https://www.ajc.com/news/local-govt-...6L26zn4jgVBrN/

Thousands of people are moving to metro Atlanta from around the country, increasing the region’s population to nearly 5.8 million, according to the U.S. Census.
Metro Atlanta gained the fourth-most residents in the nation last year, with 90,650 additional people making the area their home.
The Atlanta area is the ninth-largest metropolitan statistical area in the country. The region grew by 1.6 percent from 2015 to 2016, boosting its population to 5,789,700.

- - - - -

Projecting an annual population growth of 1.6% translates to a doubling of population in 45 years.
(Doubling time can be approximated by dividing 72 by the percentage growth rate.)


There is no way to "double" road capacity by simply building more roads when constrained by existing buildings.

Ever widening roads, while forcing people to live in tall high rise buildings, is not advisable, to say the least.

Atlanta, and other growing cities, can benefit more from rail based mass transit that can scale with population growth.

[JMatl]

Originally Posted by architect77

Space is so limited in Hong Kong that people pay $600 to live in a 4'x5' coffin apts. with roaches and bedbugs crawling all over them.

Site-specific conditions that help turn a profit in one special situation means nothing to the rest of the world.

You are defending a point for the hell of it and you know it.

It's juvenile to force it as the perfect solution here above all else.

Light rail on rubber wheels would be more flexible and cheaper than light or heavy rail.

None of this has any bearing on why the MTR is profitable. They've figured out how to unlock the value of their land around the stations, plain and simple.

The new Brightline venture in Florida is using the same model, by unlocking the value of the historic Florida East Coast Railroad properties they own in the Downtowns of Miami, Ft. Lauderdale and West Palm Beach. Ridership is already far exceeding projections, and it's being extended next year to an already completed massive multi-model terminal at Orlando International Airport. I predict this is going to be a roaring success, and they will be profitable.

https://gobrightline.com/

Even if it isn't profitable, it's extremely shortsighted to just write off all rail.