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.
I think that would be perfect, except for the fact that you'd have to transfer to the heavy rail just to continue ITP. If the Gold Line were light rail then they could just extend it out, with no transfer required.
In this hypothetical instead of spending billions to replace what we have already, I'd rather extend up to somewhere like Dunwoody station or along BuHi towards Lindbergh or along Clairemont to Decatur or really on anything else that isn't tearing out what exists.
In this hypothetical instead of spending billions to replace what we have already, I'd rather extend up to somewhere like Dunwoody station or along BuHi towards Lindbergh or along Clairemont to Decatur or really on anything else that isn't tearing out what exists.
Yeah, if you ran a light rail line roughly along 285 and 85 from Dunwoody MARTA station to Sugarloaf Pkwy, you'd still have to transfer, but you could transfer to either the Red or Gold lines depending on the destination, and you could at least access Perimeter Mall and the State Farm campus from Gwinnett with no transfer. That would be super helpful considering all the traffic in that commute, and the horrific backups at Spaghetti Junction.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,987,215 times
Reputation: 7328
Quote:
Originally Posted by primaltech
I can't speak for the other guy's post, but I'm not sure if you fully read my post, or if you missed my essential point, which was more hypothetical thoughts on the topic than a real
world suggestion.
All I meant to say, yes certainly the third rail based heavy rail system that was popular in the 20th century can be superior in capacity and speed (at least by a little bit), but now in the 21st century, the construction costs of it are just enormous. Much higher than the more modern light rail systems.
My bad for misconstruing your post, but I still don't get it. Why even bother considering such a point when it's beyond whatever is reasonable for the topic at hand? If this was Houston or some other city without an inch of heavy rail transit it is a somewhat valid point. I say somewhat as the data shows that while LRT can be effective as the backbone of a metro transit agency, however none so far in North America come close to besting the multi-line HRT systems.
Top 10 LRT daily ridership, Q4 2019
1. Los Angeles - 161k
2. San Francisco - 157k
3. Boston - 137k*
4. Portland - 119k
5. San Diego - 117k
6. Denver - 95k
7. Dallas - 92k
8. Philadelphia - 89k*
9. Seattle - 83k
10. Minneapolis - 75k
Top 10 HRT daily ridership, Q4 2019
1. NYC - 9.1 million
2. DC - 816k
3. Chicago - 695k
4. Boston - 475k
5. Bay Area - 421k
6. Philadelphia - 329k
7. Jersey City - 305k
8. Atlanta - 260k
9. Los Angeles - 130k
10. Miami - 62k
While HRT is "older" technology, clearly it's the superior method still for moving massive amounts of people. As you can see from the list, none of the full built out LRT only systems come close to matching the multi-line HRT systems...except LA and Miami which are sad, but have an even car culture than we do.
I agree that LRT is far superior in the cost department versus HRT, that's undisputed. However, it's one of those things that falls in to the "you get what you pay for".
Quote:
Originally Posted by primaltech
While I know they won't convert it to light rail (which yes of course would have its own initial cost associated in doing so), I think if it were, then it would ultimately be better for the system, because it could actually be expanded, with more and longer lines, and ran right on the Beltline (with trains straight from Five Points), etc. Here in Seattle the light rail goes just as fast as MARTA when running in the tunnels and aerial, goes acceptably fast on the surface sections, has plenty of capacity, and capacity can be added by adding more cars.
You may perceive that, but that is not the case. According to the Link website the top speed achievable in that tunnel is 55mph, and 35 mph on surface streets. The top speed for a MARTA train is 70mph, and averages 50mph across the system. So clearly, it isn't a equal comparison in speed capabilities.
Oddly, this doesn't really matter. Transit doesn't need to be "fast" to be effective nor is it an actual factor in determining it's worth over cars. Traveling by car is always going to be faster than using transit in every city. That's why even in a place like New York City where no one would dispute they have a good transit system and every citizen can live car-free they still heavily use personal automobiles, taxis, and rideshare to get around. Why? Because it's faster than using the subway.
This whole idea that transit needs to get you somewhere faster than an automobile to be effective is a red herring argument brought up by anti-transit forces who want that money for their roads.
Quote:
Originally Posted by primaltech
The Gold Line, for example- if it was light rail, after Doraville they could run it right along the surface where those old unused tracks are around Best Friend Rd, run it on Brook Hollow Pkwy, then run it in the median of Satellite Blvd all the way out to Sugarloaf Pkwy. With simple stations like the streetcar. The cost would be a fraction of a heavy rail extension, and you could connect a ton more riders than the current Gold Line. Also could similarly extend it south of the airport for Clayton County.Here's an old document from years ago with the light rail for the Satellite corridor:
I think that would be perfect, except for the fact that you'd have to transfer to the heavy rail just to continue ITP. If the Gold Line were light rail then they could just extend it out, with no transfer required.
Now this I could get behind for the last mile for expansion to the burbs, in theory. First, there are cities where both HRT and LRT are part of larger interconnected system and for most part those systems enjoy healthy ridership. This would be Boston, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. With the exception of Los Angeles (we all know what's up there) the use of streetcars and interurbans provide an effective balance for serving the core business districts while the streetcars serve residential area. Since most of the core neighborhoods in the city and older first ring suburbs were originally built along streetcar lines it would just be a matter of putting them back. Those neighborhoods are walkable and with a high capacity transit line that could reliably ferry 5000 to 10000 people a day it would do wonders for congestion.
When it comes to having such a connection to MARTA going to say Cobb or Gwinnett, I'm less confident of a LRT solution being the best fit. Outside of a few downtowns that grew center along what are now freight rail lines (more on this in a second), their built form is almost entirely post World War II suburbia. As much as we would hope the "build it and they will come" mentality works to transit and all of sudden you have people intentionally living car free in those places, the built form of those places doesn't support a car-free life and fixing that is multibillion dollar endeavor of it's own that cannot be easily solved even if you had the money. For that, that's why I will always double down on commuter rail to those locations.
The most common use case from someone from a part of the metro like that is to use transit to get to work, an event, or the airport. It wouldn't be for most folks in that area to take a trip to the grocery store or some other mundane daily task. They would use their car for that since it makes much more sense in that environment. Using commuter rail we could take advantage of these downtown suburban areas to house a train station and run commuter trains on say a twice an hour frequency and perhaps double during rush hour.
With such a headway you would need a vehicle capable of transporting at least a capacity of 1000 people at once. Your average LRT car will transport around 200 people in a two car configuration. Due to the limitations of the method you could probably only expect to get a four car configuration that can only transport 300 people on a good day (and a crush load) at one time. Contrast that with an 8 car MARTA configuration that has a crush load capacity of 1000. Only commuter rail could support a similar level of capacity with a lower amount of rolling stock needed. Add in that all of these places have freight lines running through them then that takes care of the biggest hurdle for LRT or even an expansion of the existing HRT: capitol costs for land and new rail.
Of course, that's easier said than done. The big freight companies have done everything in their power to hinder passenger on their lines. It's not that they lack vision. In fact, all of those line used to carry thousands of passenger trains all across the country not so long ago. It's just that air travel killed their business model and they can't make it profitable, or at least that's what they say.
Last edited by waronxmas; 02-11-2022 at 01:32 PM..
Hey, honestly, I just would like to see what I've wanted to see all my life, which is for transit to expand as significantly as possible for the Atlanta region, in a way that's comprehensive and makes sense and serves the whole metro. Whether that's bus-based, or some mode of rail-based, or both, I'm open to whatever- it would just be really great to see. Even if I don't live there anymore.
And also I don't care if it's MARTA doing it. Especially since legally they can only serve 3 counties, anyway. And they haven't impressed me at all since Keith Parker left.
Funding is of course the main thing needed regardless, but I really would like to see if 'The ATL' could become the one, unifying transit system, since it serves the whole 13-county region, and it allows for lots of flexible options for funding. It could really be like a fresh start/re-brand.
They could start by consolidating everything under it into one unified bus route plan. Which while that wouldn't provide more transit, and would still only provide the amount of transit that a county pays for, there could still be some synergies there.
Then, when they have funding referendums in a county, it wouldn't be a matter of joining something, since they're already a member. It would just be a question of, would you like to fund a big expansion of transit, including all these projects, by implementing a 1-penny sales tax (or 1/2 penny, or etc).
And, of course, ideally, the state should fund transit. But that's always been a tough hill to climb for that state.
Hey, honestly, I just would like to see what I've wanted to see all my life, which is for transit to expand as significantly as possible for the Atlanta region, in a way that's comprehensive and makes sense and serves the whole metro. Whether that's bus-based, or some mode of rail-based, or both, I'm open to whatever- it would just be really great to see. Even if I don't live there anymore.
And also I don't care if it's MARTA doing it. Especially since legally they can only serve 3 counties, anyway. And they haven't impressed me at all since Keith Parker left.
Funding is of course the main thing needed regardless, but I really would like to see if 'The ATL' could become the one, unifying transit system, since it serves the whole 13-county region, and it allows for lots of flexible options for funding. It could really be like a fresh start/re-brand.
They could start by consolidating everything under it into one unified bus route plan. Which while that wouldn't provide more transit, and would still only provide the amount of transit that a county pays for, there could still be some synergies there.
Then, when they have funding referendums in a county, it wouldn't be a matter of joining something, since they're already a member. It would just be a question of, would you like to fund a big expansion of transit, including all these projects, by implementing a 1-penny sales tax (or 1/2 penny, or etc).
And, of course, ideally, the state should fund transit. But that's always been a tough hill to climb for that state.
You seem overly invested in all of this, especially seeing how you live over 2,500 miles away.
You seem overly invested in all of this, especially seeing how you live over 2,500 miles away.
So I shouldn't care about my home, where I was born and raised and lived all of my life except for the last 2 years, and where all my family and most of my friends are? I know every inch of that whole metro like the back of my hand, I know all the history, I cheer for its teams, and I care deeply about that place, and it will always be home.
That said, it is also nice living this far away. When things get too frustrating or embarrassing, I can distance myself, and focus on all the good things happening here in Seattle with things that interest me, like transit/transportation, and density and urbanism, etc.
So I shouldn't care about my home, where I was born and raised and lived all of my life except for the last 2 years, and where all my family and most of my friends are? I know every inch of that whole metro like the back of my hand, I know all the history, I cheer for its teams, and I care deeply about that place, and it will always be home.
That said, it is also nice living this far away. When things get too frustrating or embarrassing, I can distance myself, and focus on all the good things happening here in Seattle with things that interest me, like transit/transportation, and density and urbanism, etc.
It's fine if you care about it, but it just seems a bit odd how concerned you are about transit in a city/state that you were so embarrassed by, that you moved all the way across the country to get away from.
It's fine if you care about it, but it just seems a bit odd how concerned you are about transit in a city/state that you were so embarrassed by, that you moved all the way across the country to get away from.
That's not at all the reason why I moved, or it was maybe 5% of the whole picture.
You wouldn't be aware of this, but when adults make decisions, especially big ones, there's a whole list of factors that we have to weigh, pro/con. That's why I ended up moving to Cobb County in early 2016 despite having some issues with it, and that's why I ended up leaving Cobb and Georgia altogether at the beginning of 2020, despite plenty of reasons not to. There are job reasons and personal reasons and all kinds of reasons, and intangibles. Life is complicated like that.
That's not at all the reason why I moved, or it was maybe 5% of the whole picture.
You wouldn't be aware of this, but when adults make decisions, especially big ones, there's a whole list of factors that we have to weigh, pro/con. That's why I ended up moving to Cobb County in early 2016 despite having some issues with it, and that's why I ended up leaving Cobb and Georgia altogether at the beginning of 2020, despite plenty of reasons not to. There are job reasons and personal reasons and all kinds of reasons, and intangibles. Life is complicated like that.
Are you regretting your big boy decision now that it's too expensive to buy a house where you live? On the bright side, you've got some great transit!
You left the City for personal feelings that were somewhat similar, and seem to be on board with splitting it up and having it fractured and minimized.
At least primaltech cares about the City. You come across as someone that would relish seeing it fail.
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.
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.
