MARTA Expansion into Clayton = Long awaited Commuter Rail? (Atlanta, Columbus: purchasing, construction)
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.
Having grown up with the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail, I fully agree with you. At that point, it's not really light rail, but a slightly faster streetcar. Light rail lines should be either grade-separated or, where that's not possible, be given full priority through at-grade intersections.
-skbl17
I know what you're talking about. There are parts where it feels really slow moving and it going through a neighborhood atmosphere. I noticed when I crossed a street and then a sidewalk to access the stations.... they have huge sight-line visibility issues with the terrain and older existing development around the stations, especially in the residential areas. I wouldn't be surprised if their safety plan requires them to slow down a great deal and in some locations stop.
The one thing to remember and the main thing I'm impressed by light rail is it is simply designed to versatile.
This also means how well it operates will be up to the locality that designed it.
If you get a chance look at Charlotte's LRT. It is a bit smarter on when it is grade separated and when they didn't pay the heavy price to separate it. I think it works fairly well for a medium range distance service.
One thing I like about LRT is sometimes it doesn't make sense for the expense of creating a bridge to separate the crossing from a relatively quiet, low traffic street. An LRT can get away with using crossing guard rails. It can also have more crossings when they want more street level stations, so the transit interacts with trails & side walks more. In Charlotte in their popular up and coming South End neighborhood there are a few more crossings, but the design gets heavy use. The land use of the area is denser mid-rise condos and apartments. Now Charlotte had the ability to build into a growing sunbelt city with new land use plans designed with transit in mind vs. historical preservation of the neighborhood character. This let them design things to have better operating conditions with safety in mind.
The reasons why HRT is substantially more:
-It would need to build two tracks, instead of using an existing one and/or adding one track
-Third rail
-Electrical substations
-There are no at grade crossings at all with the electrified rail; therefore much more is spent on bridges, U-braces in the ground, and tunnels. This is typically where the bulk of the costs go up.
-It would require buying more right of way given the two rails are being built. Extra right of way will be required to not interfere with future freight & regional rail plans and possibly for the building of tunnels and bridges as required.
It is actually more expensive than you think. The I-20 East extension is $1.9 billion in capital costs, but it should be noted this was for BRT and HRT implementation. So while not quite $1.9 billion, a majority of the funding is for the HRT extension. http://www.itsmarta.com/uploadedFile...08-29-2012.pdf
I would expect anywhere from $100m to $200m per mile depending on right of way acquisition and how many bridges and tunnels have to be built. The fewer the better, which is why much of the existing MARTA system followed railroads even when it wasn't best for neighborhood development.
I can understand the issue with freight which moves slower and has longer trains, but can't commuter rail use the same track?
I know what you're talking about. There are parts where it feels really slow moving and it going through a neighborhood atmosphere. I noticed when I crossed a street and then a sidewalk to access the stations.... they have huge sight-line visibility issues with the terrain and older existing development around the stations, especially in the residential areas. I wouldn't be surprised if their safety plan requires them to slow down a great deal and in some locations stop.
The one thing to remember and the main thing I'm impressed by light rail is it is simply designed to versatile.
This also means how well it operates will be up to the locality that designed it.
If you get a chance look at Charlotte's LRT. It is a bit smarter on when it is grade separated and when they didn't pay the heavy price to separate it. I think it works fairly well for a medium range distance service.
One thing I like about LRT is sometimes it doesn't make sense for the expense of creating a bridge to separate the crossing from a relatively quiet, low traffic street. An LRT can get away with using crossing guard rails. It can also have more crossings when they want more street level stations, so the transit interacts with trails & side walks more. In Charlotte in their popular up and coming South End neighborhood there are a few more crossings, but the design gets heavy use. The land use of the area is denser mid-rise condos and apartments. Now Charlotte had the ability to build into a growing sunbelt city with new land use plans designed with transit in mind vs. historical preservation of the neighborhood character. This let them design things to have better operating conditions with safety in mind.
Dallas used it so they could operate like a street car in downtown and not have the expense, but it is mostly grade separated elsewhere. Although they now want to get rid of the car/train conflicts downtown.
The issue in Atlanta is that the core is already HRT. Adding light rail (or commuter rail in this case) on the fringes just forces transfers. It doesn't really take you anywhere and so gets very few choice riders. And with its relatively limited stops, many riders would have already taken a bus to the train station, so there is yet another transfer. The ridership is not so large that buses (especially park n rides or express buses) can't handle it. There just really seems to be no justification for the expense of these stub rail lines.
I can understand the issue with freight which moves slower and has longer trains, but can't commuter rail use the same track?
Commuter rail can, but that isn't HRT. Those are separate things.
Commuter rail just had to have the passenger cars and trains (rolling stock) be FRA compliant.
Heavy set, high off the ground, prepared to take minor bumps.
The issue with using existing track is Atlanta's tracks are the regional inland hub for freight operations. It isn't just local service, but its alot of regional and national service. It is extremely congested and extremely important to our economy.
Because of this the issue is capacity is far from plentiful, it is actually very tight. What makes it worse is freight operators want slow moving trains that never stop (fuel efficiency) and passenger trains make quick stops and want to move as fast as possible (speed efficiency). This adds to scheduling complications.
As MattCW and I have discussed at great length in the past the state DOT has never pushed the idea of all-day two-way service for commuter rail. The original plan that exists from the 90s was for one-way peak-hour commuter service only mainly to serve choice commuters going downtown.
The alternative is to go to the heavy expense of adding more track. At that point/expense I'd rather us get more creative with LRT. Build LRT that is single tracked with fewer stations over long distance and after arriving at hub in the city center it can circulate and interlink with other planned lines. It is also more upgradeable in the future. Admittedly, this is outside of the box thinking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bu2
The issue in Atlanta is that the core is already HRT. Adding light rail (or commuter rail in this case) on the fringes just forces transfers. It doesn't really take you anywhere and so gets very few choice riders. And with its relatively limited stops, many riders would have already taken a bus to the train station, so there is yet another transfer. The ridership is not so large that buses (especially park n rides or express buses) can't handle it. There just really seems to be no justification for the expense of these stub rail lines.
See that is less of a concern to me. If we try to always make everything HRT, we will always be cashstrpped and limited to what we can do. It is normal for some transfers to have to be made. We can't design a system region-wide that doesn't have any at all. Our job centers are too dispersed for that.
The other thing I want you to think about....
If we had a full commuter rail system, over night the place for businesses to located would be central and southern downtown. Future growth is an important consideration in 30 year plans. They know we'll have over 3 million more people... the question is where the people live, work, and how they commute.
We don't have to design a solution for everyone to give our whole multi-modal system (freeways too) the capacity to handle 8+ million people 30 years from now.
The other thing is I place a high value on having one area in town where an employer can located and attract workers from the whole region. Right now we are losing that due to congestion and it will get worse over time. The more we have this, the more we can attract the choosiest (and well paying) of employers that want a wider talent pool.
Commuter rail with a central hub will accomplish this.
Google: Concept3 Atlanta
This was the region-wide transit plan. The reason I like it is we have to start from a region-wide plan and not keep saying with the next few newstart projects.... we -have- to make HRT. It is what we already have. Instead we need to say... this is how it fits into the bigger puzzle... and we can't fund this puzzle without choosing carefully where to put in funds.
I was 100% in favor of HRT through Clayton's Norfolk-Southern line until I read some of the comments here. Though I still maintain that's the better option, I will concede that at least commuter rail could be rather easily extended into Henry County and perhaps beyond.
And yes, bar none the biggest bottleneck to HRT expansion is Congress. Don't even get me started on its current condition...
Commuter rail can, but that isn't HRT. Those are separate things.
Commuter rail just had to have the passenger cars and trains (rolling stock) be FRA compliant.
Heavy set, high off the ground, prepared to take minor bumps.
The issue with using existing track is Atlanta's tracks are the regional inland hub for freight operations. It isn't just local service, but its alot of regional and national service. It is extremely congested and extremely important to our economy.
Because of this the issue is capacity is far from plentiful, it is actually very tight. What makes it worse is freight operators want slow moving trains that never stop (fuel efficiency) and passenger trains make quick stops and want to move as fast as possible (speed efficiency). This adds to scheduling complications.
As MattCW and I have discussed at great length in the past the state DOT has never pushed the idea of all-day two-way service for commuter rail. The original plan that exists from the 90s was for one-way peak-hour commuter service only mainly to serve choice commuters going downtown.
The alternative is to go to the heavy expense of adding more track. At that point/expense I'd rather us get more creative with LRT. Build LRT that is single tracked with fewer stations over long distance and after arriving at hub in the city center it can circulate and interlink with other planned lines. It is also more upgradeable in the future. Admittedly, this is outside of the box thinking.
See that is less of a concern to me. If we try to always make everything HRT, we will always be cashstrpped and limited to what we can do. It is normal for some transfers to have to be made. We can't design a system region-wide that doesn't have any at all. Our job centers are too dispersed for that.
The other thing I want you to think about....
If we had a full commuter rail system, over night the place for businesses to located would be central and southern downtown. Future growth is an important consideration in 30 year plans. They know we'll have over 3 million more people... the question is where the people live, work, and how they commute.
We don't have to design a solution for everyone to give our whole multi-modal system (freeways too) the capacity to handle 8+ million people 30 years from now.
The other thing is I place a high value on having one area in town where an employer can located and attract workers from the whole region. Right now we are losing that due to congestion and it will get worse over time. The more we have this, the more we can attract the choosiest (and well paying) of employers that want a wider talent pool.
Commuter rail with a central hub will accomplish this.
Google: Concept3 Atlanta
This was the region-wide transit plan. The reason I like it is we have to start from a region-wide plan and not keep saying with the next few newstart projects.... we -have- to make HRT. It is what we already have. Instead we need to say... this is how it fits into the bigger puzzle... and we can't fund this puzzle without choosing carefully where to put in funds.
Excellent points, CW.
Though, even if we decided to go with a scaled-down version of LRT to use in place of either commuter rail implementation and/or HRT expansion to save money, a major problem is that we don't even seem to have the money (or any way to get the money) for even the scaled-down version of LRT that you recommend.
Maybe in theory, a scaled-down version of LRT in place of commuter rail and HRT expansion might be able to attract federal funding (or at-least might have been able to attract federal funding in the past)....But our incompetent state government has demonstrated beyond a doubt that they have no interest in providing even a relatively modest amount of matching funds for important transportation projects (particularly transit).
Also, we appear to be quickly approaching a point where Congress seems to have very-little interest in continuing to provide federal funding for local and state transportation projects (particularly for transit projects, but also for functions as simple as routine road maintenance).
If we want to improve, upgrade and expand our multimodal transportation system as needed in anticipation of the 3 million+ new residents that are expected to move into the Atlanta metro region over the next 30 years or so, we are likely going to have to find a way to come up with the money on our own with the expectation of receiving very-little help from what at the moment appears to be a dead-broke and highly-dysfunctional federal government.
If we want to improve, upgrade and expand our multimodal transportation system as needed, we are most-likely going to have to come with the money on our own by raising money from the private sector using the prospects of future revenue-generating commercial real estate development along both major roads and transit lines as leverage.
MARTA has already started making moves to cultivate new streams of revenue from its land holdings at, around and even above its stations....At this point in time of dwindling and increasingly severely-limited funding from traditional sources, it would probably be most-wise of us to utilize that approach of paying for transit with revenues from commercial real estate development along transit lines on a large-scale if we hope to obtain the high-level of transit service that we will need going forward.
It also might not be a bad idea (*it's JUST an idea*) if the existing MARTA HRT system was overhauled into a LRT system capable of HRT speeds and an HRT-level of service so that transfers could be minimized where possible....And so that trains on existing and future radial high-capacity passenger rail transit routes could operate on at-grade passenger rail right-of-ways beyond the ends of the current MARTA HRT system.
Overhauling the current MARTA HRT system into an LRT system capable of HRT speeds and an HRT-level of service would allow passengers to ride from the Airport and Central Atlanta (Downtown, Midtown, Buckhead) out to outlying areas without having to transfer between different modes of rail transit to complete longer-distance trips (...like say if someone wanted to ride from the Airport to Windward Parkway up the GA 400 corridor without having to transfer from an HRT train to an LRT train at North Springs or vice-versa).
Overhauling the current MARTA HRT system into an LRT system capable of HRT speeds and an HRT-level of service would not mean that all future segments of high-capacity passenger rail track could be built only with at-grade right-of-ways, but it would mean that we could potentially save some money by not having to build every new section of passenger rail line in grade-separated right-of-ways.
We would still need to build a maximum number of new stations so that we could generate a maximum amount of operating revenue from revenue-generating transit-oriented real estate development and passenger fares, but we could bypass many lower-capacity stations with express trains that only served the busiest stations at peak times and as-needed.
Overhauling the current MARTA HRT system into an LRT system (...an LRT system that is capable of HRT speeds and an HRT level-of-service) is not necessarily my first preference personally, but it would help us have more financial resources available to provide more people and places with a high-level of high-capacity transit service.
Last edited by Born 2 Roll; 06-28-2014 at 02:41 PM..
It also might not be a bad idea (*it's JUST an idea*) if the existing MARTA HRT system was overhauled into a LRT system capable of HRT speeds and an HRT-level of service so that transfers could be minimized where possible....And so that trains on existing and future radial high-capacity passenger rail transit routes could operate on at-grade passenger rail right-of-ways beyond the ends of the current MARTA HRT system.
Overhauling the current MARTA HRT system into an LRT system capable of HRT speeds and an HRT-level of service would allow passengers to ride from the Airport and Central Atlanta (Downtown, Midtown, Buckhead) out to outlying areas without having to transfer between different modes of rail transit to complete longer-distance trips (...like say if someone wanted to ride from the Airport to Windward Parkway up the GA 400 corridor without having to transfer from an HRT train to an LRT train at North Springs or vice-versa).
Overhauling the current MARTA HRT system into an LRT system capable of HRT speeds and an HRT-level of service would not mean that all future segments of high-capacity passenger rail track could be built only with at-grade right-of-ways, but it would mean that we could potentially save some money by not having to build every new section of passenger rail line in grade-separated right-of-ways.
We would still need to build a maximum number of new stations so that we could generate a maximum amount of operating revenue from revenue-generating transit-oriented real estate development and passenger fares, but we could bypass many lower-capacity stations with express trains that only served the busiest stations at peak times and as-needed.
Overhauling the current MARTA HRT system into an LRT system (...an LRT system that is capable of HRT speeds and an HRT level-of-service) is not necessarily my first preference personally, but it would help us have more financial resources available to provide more people and places with a high-level of high-capacity transit service.
Ehhhhh...I'm not so sure about this. We're talking a potentially multi-billion dollar project to downgrade the existing network just to reduce the capital costs of future expansions. I think LRT is better suited for in-town corridors such as the Beltline.
Well the problem with trying to make everything LRT for interoperability alone is that the core, particularly from Lindbergh to Five Points actually needs the upgraded service. The larger cars. It also benefits from the more sophisticated automated controls.
The other consideration is the city would diminish its ability to handle large event traffic easily. The HRT trains simply move more people at the same time.
But if we made all new builds LRT, they could be inter-operable and use parts of the Beltline. On the Northside trains from Kennesaw could route to Alpharetta and Gwinnett Place ... both passing through Perimeter Center. Trains from Gwinnett could go to Alpharetta and Kennesaw with Concept 3.
The cobb route could have a direct connection to Midtown and to Emory via the northern part of the Beltline.
The important thing is we minimize transfers and make it so the whole region can access major employment districts typically with one transfer.
The mere thing I wanted to bring up is if we built stuff that isn't HRT now... it can still be interoperable with other projects throughout the metro in the future.
To do this we need to operate from a fully built out regional framework, so we don't second-guess every new start for not being HRT.... instead we will say... 40 years out it is for the best in this regional framework...whatever is decided on a fully built out system.
Ehhhhh...I'm not so sure about this. We're talking a potentially multi-billion dollar project to downgrade the existing network just to reduce the capital costs of future expansions. I think LRT is better suited for in-town corridors such as the Beltline.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwkimbro
Well the problem with trying to make everything LRT for interoperability alone is that the core, particularly from Lindbergh to Five Points actually needs the upgraded service. The larger cars. It also benefits from the more sophisticated automated controls.
The other consideration is the city would diminish its ability to handle large event traffic easily. The HRT trains simply move more people at the same time.
But if we made all new builds LRT, they could be inter-operable and use parts of the Beltline. On the Northside trains from Kennesaw could route to Alpharetta and Gwinnett Place ... both passing through Perimeter Center. Trains from Gwinnett could go to Alpharetta and Kennesaw with Concept 3.
The cobb route could have a direct connection to Midtown and to Emory via the northern part of the Beltline.
The important thing is we minimize transfers and make it so the whole region can access major employment districts typically with one transfer.
The mere thing I wanted to bring up is if we built stuff that isn't HRT now... it can still be interoperable with other projects throughout the metro in the future.
To do this we need to operate from a fully built out regional framework, so we don't second-guess every new start for not being HRT.... instead we will say... 40 years out it is for the best in this regional framework...whatever is decided on a fully built out system.
Well, overhauling the current MARTA HRT system into an LRT system capable of HRT speeds and an HRT level-of-service was just an idea....An idea motivated by the dislike of the idea constructing LRT extensions at the ends of MARTA HRT lines, which is an idea that I really dislike personally and that I think would be not necessarily the best thing for the future of transit overall in Metro Atlanta.
I don't mind a different mode of rail transit on the Beltline, but for trips between ITP/Central Atlanta locations and heavily-populated outlying areas (like between the Airport and Windward Parkway, or between the Airport and Kennesaw, or between the Airport and Buford, etc), high-capacity passenger rail transit service should mainly be one-seat rides with as few transfers as possible.
I really hate the idea of traveling from an ITP location like the Airport (or Downtown) to an outlying OTP location like Windward Parkway and having to transfer from an HRT train to an LRT train to continue on up the GA 400 North corridor into North Fulton County.
Trips on high-capacity transit corridors like between the Airport and North Fulton, the Airport and Northwest Cobb (Kennesaw), the Airport and North Gwinnett (Buford), etc, should be one-seat rides with no transfers.
One-seat high-capacity passenger rail transit rides between heavily-populated outlying areas OTP (Cobb, North Fulton and Gwinnett counties) and the world's busiest airport would be a huge selling point for business interests in the same way that one-seat HRT rides between locations like Perimeter Center, Buckhead and Midtown and the world's busiest airport are already a huge selling point for business interests.
I also think that if we are going to keep the current HRT system for Fulton and DeKalb counties, any future high-capacity passenger rail transit service connecting Kennesaw and Northwest Cobb County with Gwinnett County (Gwinnett Place, Buford, etc) by way of the I-285 Top End Perimeter should also likely be HRT service....That's because of the fact that such a likely future NW Cobb-NE Gwinnett I-285 Top End Perimeter high-capacity passenger rail transit line would be connecting such major regional employment centers as Kennesaw/Town Center, Cumberland, Perimeter Center, Norcross/Peachtree Corners and Gwinnett Place Mall (and possibly the Mall of Georgia/Buford and Lake Lanier areas).
A NW Cobb-NE Gwinnett I-285 Top End Perimeter high-capacity passenger rail transit line should likely also be HRT so that its eastern and western ends will be interoperable on likely future expansions of HRT lines radiating out into the closer-in OTP suburbs along radial corridors like I-75 NW, GA 400 N and I-85 NE.
@CW
My question was whether HRT and commuter rail could use the same track.
So you could do HRT to say, Jonesboro, while having commuter rail further out and eventually use the line for Atlanta-Macon-Savannah-Jacksonville rail.
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.
