Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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)
 
Old 06-27-2014, 08:50 PM
bu2
 
23,841 posts, read 14,619,513 times
Reputation: 12635

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MattCW View Post
The going cost for HRT now is ~$110,000,000 per mile, or about $1.1 Billion for the 10 miles to Jonesboro. Electrification of an existing freight line is about $1.5 Million per mile, or about $15 Million for 10 miles. Frankly, 25kv 60Hz electrification is what we need to be doing, Denver is going something like that. The I-20 East cost is closer to $1.8 Billion, I'm not sure where you got $400-$450 Million from. If anything, I-20 East is slightly cheaper because there would only be 10 displacements (though some of that is shared with the BRT component I believe) because they are largely using GDOT RoW. I can't imagine any less than 20 displacements for a Jonesboro HRT especially after stations. so maybe a lot more.

It's a little bit of a waste, but I hope that they actually extend to Lovejoy in short order. I also hope they end up extending to downtown Atlanta, in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the freight railroads insisted on that simply so they don't have to try and turn the commuter train on the mainline. We don't need a big, grand MMPT for a downtown terminal. A strip of concrete thrown down, with a hole punched through Five Points, and some stairs and an elevator up to Forsyth street would serve adequately until the MMPT came around.

I agree, which is why I hope they will extend to downtown as I said above. But the commuter train, especially if ran all day long, would pick up a lot of choice riders, and cost far less than HRT.

The 400-450 was from some newspaper articles talking about it when the DeKalb legislators were lobbying for it. I looked up the project list and it shows funding of $225 million. If they were assuming 50% federal funding, that would be $450 million.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-27-2014, 08:53 PM
 
Location: Atlanta, GA
719 posts, read 1,325,522 times
Reputation: 691
I'd rather see the rail grow on the Northern end of the perimeter.......
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2014, 09:09 PM
 
10,331 posts, read 11,311,733 times
Reputation: 7679
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolieandre View Post
I'd rather see the rail grow on the Northern end of the perimeter.......
I completely agree that there is a pressing need for high-capacity passenger rail transit service to be implemented across the Top End of the I-285 Perimeter.

But the Top End of the I-285 Perimeter and Atlanta's powerful and highly-influential Northern suburbs are not the only places in need of improved, upgraded and expanded high-capacity transit service.

Places outside of Atlanta's powerful and highly-influential Northern suburbs (like Clayton County and the Southern Crescent, the I-20 East corridor, the I-20 West corridor, etc) also critically need the improvements to mobility, the logistical opportunities and the economic development opportunities that come with the implementation of high-capacity passenger rail transit service just as much as the powerful Northside does.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2014, 09:27 PM
 
Location: Decatur, GA
7,333 posts, read 6,466,632 times
Reputation: 5122
Quote:
Originally Posted by bu2 View Post
The 400-450 was from some newspaper articles talking about it when the DeKalb legislators were lobbying for it. I looked up the project list and it shows funding of $225 million. If they were assuming 50% federal funding, that would be $450 million.
That was probably just for the initial planning, or the BRT component, which the $225 Million from the T-SPLOST would have covered. If you go to the planning website on MARTA, it shows the cost as being about $1.9 Billion which considering other projects around the country, is about right sadly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2014, 11:02 PM
 
Location: Atlanta
7,574 posts, read 10,684,729 times
Reputation: 6512
Quote:
Originally Posted by bu2 View Post
Anyone have any idea how much more HRT would cost? I'm not sure why it would be substantially more. Electrifying the line? Having to build 2 sets of tracks in the ROW because they can't share with freight? Indian Springs station to Stonecrest Mall was, I think, only projected to be around $400-$450 million for a similar distance and they were starting from scratch in highway ROW.

Running commuter rail from Jonesboro to East Point and not beyond seems like a waste of a quarter million dollars. They could do park-n-rides cheaper and provide better service. Now HRT where they actually connect to the existing system without another transfer is a different story. Don't build just to build.
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2014, 11:12 PM
 
Location: Decatur, GA
7,333 posts, read 6,466,632 times
Reputation: 5122
Very good write-up cwkimbro! But I'd like to make a slight correction. Heavy Rail doesn't technically have to be grade-separated. Chicago's L has several at-grade lines, all north of Chicago I believe. New York's two third-rail commuter railroads (I know, they aren't HRT, but similar idea), Metro North, and the Long Island Railroad, all have a number of grade crossings in their third-rail territories as well. While it should definitely be avoided at all costs, it's not unprecedented, at least outside of Atlanta.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2014, 12:29 AM
 
Location: Atlanta
7,574 posts, read 10,684,729 times
Reputation: 6512
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattCW View Post
Very good write-up cwkimbro! But I'd like to make a slight correction. Heavy Rail doesn't technically have to be grade-separated. Chicago's L has several at-grade lines, all north of Chicago I believe. New York's two third-rail commuter railroads (I know, they aren't HRT, but similar idea), Metro North, and the Long Island Railroad, all have a number of grade crossings in their third-rail territories as well. While it should definitely be avoided at all costs, it's not unprecedented, at least outside of Atlanta.
For us, operationally, they have to be.... so no correction needed.

We aren't an old system grandfathered into doing things done a long time ago.

It isn't particularly safe either.

For Chicago it is only a handful of grade crossings near the end of a couple of lines. The electrified rail stops short of the street and they have an automated gate system to try to block off the rail right of way for pedestrians.
This is really more of the uncommon exception, rather than something that happens often.

On top of that we'd never be able to afford any type of HRT without federal funds. To do that we are tied to their rules and regulations, which do not make things like this possible anymore. This also fails to mention that it makes the trains run slower and takes away the speed advantages of using HRT over LRT.

If we go with grade crossings, we need to look to LRT. That is a better, safer alternative with cost savings that doesn't jeopardize speed if you use some strategic grade crossings to save money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2014, 01:07 AM
 
Location: Decatur, GA
7,333 posts, read 6,466,632 times
Reputation: 5122
Interesting, I didn't know that the Feds prohibited HRT grade crossings for new lines with Federal funding. Do you happen to know if this is codified anywhere? I don't doubt you of course, I just like understanding the details.

I wonder why though grade crossings are ok for LRT since these days, LRT can be just as capable as HRT at least in terms of speed. The only thing I can think of is that they would require the LRT to stop for every grade crossing like the HBLRT does in New Jersey, which I really hope isn't the case.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2014, 01:12 AM
 
Location: Just outside of McDonough, Georgia
1,057 posts, read 1,122,931 times
Reputation: 1335
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattCW View Post
The only thing I can think of is that they would require the LRT to stop for every grade crossing like the HBLRT does in New Jersey, which I really hope isn't the case.
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
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2014, 03:05 AM
 
Location: Atlanta
7,574 posts, read 10,684,729 times
Reputation: 6512
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattCW View Post
Interesting, I didn't know that the Feds prohibited HRT grade crossings for new lines with Federal funding. Do you happen to know if this is codified anywhere? I don't doubt you of course, I just like understanding the details.

I wonder why though grade crossings are ok for LRT since these days, LRT can be just as capable as HRT at least in terms of speed. The only thing I can think of is that they would require the LRT to stop for every grade crossing like the HBLRT does in New Jersey, which I really hope isn't the case.
Well that is a bit complex... specifically mentioning where it is codified.

There is a regulation called Part 659 that is codified about safety of transit systems. It gives the FTA power to get involved in safety plans of transit agencies. Specifically, it sets up a review of designs of new starts.

It specifically requires everyone to follow the updated document titled, "APTA Manual for the Development of Urban Rail Agency System Safety Program Plans." This gives the power and sets up the process. For Light rail this document specifically points to several published reports relating to light rail systems operating in streets and pedestrian safety.

Things also get more jumbled up as the USDOT has rail/road Crossing Action Plan and they allow states to draft their own plans to be accepted by the USDOT.

So there isn't a specific document that puts everything in black and white as much as 3 federal agencies + state agencies + muncipal agencies required to go through a review process together and work off of self-created standards often created through research. This is one reason why MARTA is often cited as a valuable tool to get a new start off the ground vs a purely city/county operated system. They have staffers they keep up with all of the research and publications from FTA and the USDOT every year.

This gives FTA operationally a great deal of power to control the federal cash strings without codifying every operational detail. What they do is create many publications to guide and then it becomes a reviewed process for safety certification needed for federal funding.

A grade crossing with an electrified third rail is just about impossible through this process. They pretty much define in writing a heavy rail system having exclusive right of way.

Another issue, which is not always true... but is in the case of Atlanta, is the sophistication of controls affects the safety plan and design of the system. MARTA is highly automated, although the conductor can stop train, this would play into heavy consideration for how the system is designed and grade crossings. This could be altered/overcome, but not without heavy changes.

Light rail, in contrast, has 3 main advantages (physically) and one main advantage politically for grade crossings.

-Overheard wire, not ground electrification. The safety concern has a great deal to do with trespassing of the right of way next to the crossing with the electrified rail.
-Less sophisticated control systems and more driver control, therefore there is a more attentive operator for crossings and mixed-operating conditions. A person has the ability to examine surroundings better.
-The train cars themselves are more lightweight and designed to both keep people on the train car safe from auto accidents and not inflict as much damage for those in cars involved in accidents. (ie. low-profile, less bare steel, cushioned siding, etc...)

Essentially it was designed with in-street operations in mind and very similar to a streetcar.

politically
-FTA defines it as a fixed right of way system that can operate in street, off street, and crossing streets. They publish specific policy manuals on design and safety plans for operating in street and with street crossings. Example: google: Improving Pedestrian Safety and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments (Report 137)

There is no requirement that LRT stops at grade crossings. If you get a chance take a quick to Charlotte or Seattle. Now with a grade crossing in the safety review process the civil engineering side will be reviewed, which will inevitably look at sight lines approaching the crossing, the type of traffic control/protection used, and the safety action plan... which will examine operating speed amongst other things.
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:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top