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.
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.
I agree that those should be one stop as much as possible. Especially since there already is a "transfer." Most of the people in these outlying locations are riding a bus or car to the train station for their 1st transfer. And in some cases, they may need to get on a bus once they reach their destination on the rail line.
@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.
Like I said (and CW also explained), I understand why these freight lines have to be separate. What is the issue with commuter rail and HRT? I don't see speeds or frequency causing conflicts. Different gauge tracks? What's the issue?
Like I said (and CW also explained), I understand why these freight lines have to be separate. What is the issue with commuter rail and HRT? I don't see speeds or frequency causing conflicts. Different gauge tracks? What's the issue?
It's the Federal Railroad Administration. Commuter rail trains run on the national network, possibly alongside freight trains so they have to be built to a certain standard, but that precludes them mixing with HRT trains as well. There are lots of other differences, and cwkimbro seems far more suited than I at describing the bureaucratic details. But they just can't and that's the way it is.
Build the corridor as commuter rail( not the same as HRT). The row is there and it will allow MARTA to gets it's foot in the door on commuter rail and the line could eventually be extended downtown. This could be the start of Atlanta's commuter rail system and speed up the need for mmpt. Those Clayton county residents are already transferring and had to with c-tran. This plan is great for Clayton county.
Like I said (and CW also explained), I understand why these freight lines have to be separate. What is the issue with commuter rail and HRT? I don't see speeds or frequency causing conflicts. Different gauge tracks? What's the issue?
I see where you're going with this now.
It is a standard gauge track. I think CSX uses the same gauge. I can't speak for all of NS corridors in the area. I'm not sure if there are any oddities like the physical design of the track (angles, etc..)
They would have to get a special waiver from the FRA just to have the link from the freight/commuter track to the HRT track.
The train car would have to be FRA compliant without a doubt.
Those cars tend to be longer and taller, which might cause problems in tunnels. The commuter car would need to use overhead wires and not diesel throughout the whole line. The ventilation needed wouldn't exist.
There would be issues with platform alignment, which was specifically designed for very specific rolling stock. (We couldn't even take a BART, or CTA, or a MTA train and run on MARTA's tracks and have it fit. Everything on the system was designed to match that particular train car.)
The commuter rail train would cause hiccups on the automated part of the HRT operations.
Mostly... the reason this won't be pursued is in most situations once a commuter train is on one part of the track... it is already taking up time and space on the route. It might as well go all the way. Freight operations already had to adjust their schedules accordingly.
They also won't make significant investments (financially and politically) to make it happen when the end game would be to arrive at a downtown multi-modal terminal.
The reason it would stop at East Point at first is because the line through Clayton just happens to have lighter use. It is a secondary mainline for NS and it is more delivery trains and just a few through trains.
When that NS line gets to East Point it joins a CSX line. They two lines have a single double tracked right of way and the two companies share use of both tracks. It would be easier to go ahead and go downtown, than to try to operate across HRT by a wide margin.
The benefit of stopping at East Point at first is they don't have to deal with CSX in the short-run, just NS. They also can wait on movement of a downtown terminal, which will be inside an active rail junction and would be in the way of construction of any large-scale terminal. It is also important to note that a common transit destination for Clayton County residents is the airport itself, not necessarily downtown. Getting people to the airport is almost as important downtown passengers.
The other benefit is if they do pay for a second track that is mostly used for commuter operations, they can do all-day, two-way service to East Point... but couldn't to downtown.
So the long-story short on this NS rail line through Clayton, to Griffin and onto Macon is it is a second mainline for Norfolk Southern that goes between Atlanta and Macon. It is older, curvier, has less sophisticated rail crossings, lower speed limits, and only has a few through-trains/day. Most train movements are local deliveries to each town and to the industrial districts in the northern part of Clayton County.
The state has pushed requesting federal money for this route all the way to Macon, but unsuccessful since they do not provide much state funds to match. The concept is to the get track upgraded for a higher class of service and open it up for more freight on the way to Savannah and passenger service, since Macon is the critical link for all future passenger service to South Georgia, Savannah, and of course Macon. This alignment could also be partly used for Columbus bound trains. So for the state-wide passenger rail plan, this is a critical link. Of course... that may never happen anyways.
NS has an incentive to help get their track upgraded with gov't help and there are fewer hurdles and freight conflicts to deal with. It makes it an ideal starter line for the GDOT to put together when they dive into the world of commuter rail.
Looked up the east line document and 400 document.
They estimated 200 million/mile for the 400 extension, 138 million/mile for the I20 extension for HRT.
BRT on the I20 was 81 million/mile. Based on those, the cost on the east side should be $2.6 billion instead of $1.9, so I'm not sure how they got to the $1.9.
Thought it was interesting that the HRT had $500 million for professional fees and nearly $500 million in contingency for the $2.6 billion in the 19 mile route (they shortened it in the LPA to 12 miles when they added the BRT). BRT had significantly lower estimates for professional fees and contingency but still came to $1.6 billion for the 19 miles.
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.
Ran across this in the Clifton Corridor analysis:
[SIZE=3]"HRT was also recommended for further study in Screen 1 because of its compatibility with the existing MARTA rail system. It should be noted that MARTA has been researching a concept which would involve redesigning some of the existing heavy rail fleet to be powered by overhead catenary rather than a typical electrified third rail. The purpose for applying modified HRT was to allow for compatibility with LRT for operation from Lindbergh to Avondale. Additional details on the combined heavy and light rail option are included in Section 6.2. This concept may be completed at a lower cost as opposed to purchasing a new fleet of light rail vehicles, and may allow easier integration with other light rail lines planned for the Atlanta region in the future. "
[/SIZE]
Ran across this in the Clifton Corridor analysis:
[SIZE=3]"HRT was also recommended for further study in Screen 1 because of its compatibility with the existing MARTA rail system. It should be noted that MARTA has been researching a concept which would involve redesigning some of the existing heavy rail fleet to be powered by overhead catenary rather than a typical electrified third rail. The purpose for applying modified HRT was to allow for compatibility with LRT for operation from Lindbergh to Avondale. Additional details on the combined heavy and light rail option are included in Section 6.2. This concept may be completed at a lower cost as opposed to purchasing a new fleet of light rail vehicles, and may allow easier integration with other light rail lines planned for the Atlanta region in the future. "
[/SIZE]
VERY interesting!
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.
