Design Your Own MARTA Expansion (Atlanta, East Point: litigation, metra, ferries)

[bu2]

Originally Posted by sedimenjerry

The issue with the line was the stops themselves but also the speed limits. Lots of changing from 55 to 35 or 25 then back up, then back down. MARTA is much faster (and I suppose that's one of the differences between light and heavy rail).

heavy rail accelerates faster.

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by bu2

@4thwarden
I'm struck by the differences between the TSPLOST referendum and the various referendums in Dallas and Houston. Those long term plans were always the centerpiece-for DART's formation and the 3 rail referendums in Houston (don't really remember the MTA formation election in Houston). With the TSPLOST, everyone's pet project got put in and nothing was really tied to the ARC plan (not that I'm that enthused about ARC's ideas). Some of the things were in the ARC plan. Some weren't. There wasn't any regional prioritization. It was just a disjointed list of projects. It was just backwards. Here's how much money we can raise. Let's see what we can spend it on.

I totally agree with you. The point I was trying to make actually ties in well with that point, that, even when there is a regional effort, it's disjointed and fought over to a rather juvenile extent. Instead of cohesive planning, we have piles of agencies making tiny plans on top of one another and then fighting for the scraps of political will/financing there is.

I would love to see someone, anyone really, take on regional planning, pulling all of the transit peeps together and sitting them down for a real session of let's get **** done. It should a state lead effort, with GRTA, MARTA, and GDOT pulling together, and rallying other agencies to push against the legislative body for real resources.

You're right about the ARC, though they're the only ones that seem to be looking at the whole picture.

[MattCW]

Originally Posted by bu2

That's what HOT or HOV lanes are for.

Still doesn't increase the bus capacity over rail by any amount. Nor does it account for cost.

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by BlackPeach2

So put all the people on one side of the station and leave the other side un used?.....cqholt im curious do you use the entire line of Marta? All 36 stations? I use Marta, but not all the stations. Im asking because you seem to be really involved on this thread, but I dont understand some of the logic.

I have visited all 38 stations on several occasions, except Bankhead only been once. The reason HE Holmes only uses 1 side is because it has always been planned to extend the line. If you look at all other end-of-line stations, they are island platform type so trains can alternate tracks. The west line has not been extended due to population loss and lack of density.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by MattCW

Still doesn't increase the bus capacity over rail by any amount. Nor does it account for cost.

Cost?
Atlanta's 29 miles of HOT lanes on I-75 and I-575 are estimated to cost $950 million.
The 19 mile I-20 east HRT proposal was estimated to cost $3.2 billion. So $33 million/mile vs. $168 million/mile.

A rail car can carry more, but first you have to need that capacity. As you go further out, you don't. I saw one article arguing that buses actually have greater capacity because you aren't limited by the number of vehicles on a track. You can run them as frequently as you want. Articulated buses can carry a lot of people and are used in various places on heavily travelled routes.

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by bu2

Cost?
Atlanta's 29 miles of HOT lanes on I-75 and I-575 are estimated to cost $950 million.
The 19 mile I-20 east HRT proposal was estimated to cost $3.2 billion. So $33 million/mile vs. $168 million/mile.

A rail car can carry more, but first you have to need that capacity. As you go further out, you don't. I saw one article arguing that buses actually have greater capacity because you aren't limited by the number of vehicles on a track. You can run them as frequently as you want. Articulated buses can carry a lot of people and are used in various places on heavily travelled routes.

As you start to run them more frequently, you increase the cost for drivers (pay, benefits, etc.). Adding capacity to trains is as easy as adding cars to a train, max of 8 on MARTA. Railcars cost less to maintain and last longer.
Also, that I-20 East project includes BRT between downtown and Wesley Chapel. I-20 has the capacity, in fact it has highest potential ridership of all projects.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by cqholt

As you start to run them more frequently, you increase the cost for drivers (pay, benefits, etc.). Adding capacity to trains is as easy as adding cars to a train, max of 8 on MARTA. Railcars cost less to maintain and last longer.
Also, that I-20 East project includes BRT between downtown and Wesley Chapel. I-20 has the capacity, in fact it has highest potential ridership of all projects.

That 3.2 billion was the estimate for the all HRT option. The cost was less in the adopted option with a mix of HRT and BRT (about 1.1 billion less when 7 miles were switched to BRT).

I don't have any objection to the I-20 HRT extension. Now if you were taking it to Rockdale County, that would be another matter.

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by bu2

That 3.2 billion was the estimate for the all HRT option. The cost was less in the adopted option with a mix of HRT and BRT (about 1.1 billion less when 7 miles were switched to BRT).

I don't have any objection to the I-20 HRT extension. Now if you were taking it to Rockdale County, that would be another matter.

MARTA board voted and the final decision was the HRT with BRT-ITP option. I actually prefer this option, but the BRT must be done correctly, like the Silver Line in LACMTA.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by cqholt

MARTA board voted and the final decision was the HRT with BRT-ITP option. I actually prefer this option, but the BRT must be done correctly, like the Silver Line in LACMTA.

I don't think you could justify putting HRT along I-20 inside 285 so close to the other line along DeKalb Avenue. If they do build the BRT, it will be interesting to see if they get the ridership. They are cannibalizing the Blue/Green lines to some extent.

As for the Stonecrest extension, there frequently is bad traffic from I-20 to the Indian Creek station on 285, so going to Wesley Chapel definitely makes sense. As for the rest, there is decent projected ridership and the residents want it and have for quite a while. Stonecrest is a destination for jobs and shopping so you get some reverse direction ridership and it helps the transit dependent. I just don't see a lot of growth out I-20 in the future. When the commute gets too painful in the north, places like Douglas County, Henry County and Fayette County will start seeing rapid growth again.

[cqholt]

I don't think you could justify putting HRT along I-20 inside 285 so close to the other line along DeKalb Avenue. If they do build the BRT, it will be interesting to see if they get the ridership. They are cannibalizing the Blue/Green lines to some extent.

I am not sure I understand what you mean by this?