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.
It looks to me like these light rail things go as fast as anybody needs to go in an urban environment.
DART actually has issues with slow travel speeds in their downtown. Outside of the core, the trains have their own right of way. Inside the core, though, they generally run on street level. Though they have their own lanes and such, they still have to interact with drivers at intersections, parallel roads, and even lanes that momentarily share the right of way. There's also the interaction with pedestrians to consider.
Now, none of that is inherently bad, but it does slow things down an awful lot. It's an inherently downtown-centric system.
So, for example, you could take a MARTA Red or Gold Line train from Arts Center to Garnett, a 3 mi. trip, and finish in 8 min. The train would stop at 7 stations including the start and finish stations.
I could take a DART Green Line train from Victory to Medical Center, a 2.5 mi. trip, and finish in 15 min. The train would stop at 6 stations including the start and finish stations. I don't know if this is true in rush-hour.
These sections are both roughly from one end of the city core to the other, but MARTA has the advantage of traveling underground at speed, and therefore it cuts the time nearly in half despite having an entire extra station.
So, I go back to my comment that none of this is inherently bad. If your idea is to mostly serve the core city without caring too much about through riders, then sure, it's not much of a problem. In fact, that's what our light rail and streetcars will be doing, so in that regard it makes sense to emulate Dallas to an extent. Our future streetcars and light rail could be built in a similar fashion to Dallas' and it would preform beautifully.
That's because those routes are being implemented almost purely for the service of the core (or ITB if we want to be a bit more precise).
Where we have the advantage over Dallas, is that we have a subway backbone that can sprint through the city without needing to deal with cross traffic of any kind. Not only is that great for intracity travel, but it's also wonderful for trying to get from outside one end to the other, with minimal time lost.
So, basically, we can emulate Dallas in their implementation of rail in their core, but their model is not particularly useful for the longer-range trips, especially when we already have a layer of heavy rail to build off of.
Status:
"Pickleball-Free American"
(set 7 days ago)
Location: St Simons Island, GA
23,467 posts, read 44,121,361 times
Reputation: 16866
Quote:
Originally Posted by fourthwarden
So, basically, we can emulate Dallas in their implementation of rail in their core, but their model is not particularly useful for the longer-range trips, especially when we already have a layer of heavy rail to build off of.
Yes to this, absolutely.
I've said this on here before, when the topic of rail extension to the Emory Corridor and beyond came up. I think light rail would be fine if you're going to deadhead at the campus or even North Decatur, but taking it further is a lot of distance to cover in an urban environment.
Ultimately, I think that your solution of 'layering' with LRT to provide connectivity between HRT stations is the most effective one. I can see replacing heavily traveled bus routes ie the 110, 5 and 39 with LRT; downtown Buckhead in particular is going to need rail connectivity, and soon.
Yes to this, absolutely.
I've said this on here before, when the topic of rail extension to the Emory Corridor and beyond came up. I think light rail would be fine if you're going to deadhead at the campus or even North Decatur, but taking it further is a lot of distance to cover in an urban environment.
Ultimately, I think that your solution of 'layering' with LRT to provide connectivity between HRT stations is the most effective one. I can see replacing heavily traveled bus routes ie the 110, 5 and 39 with LRT; downtown Buckhead in particular is going to need rail connectivity, and soon.
I don't think that first part is a fair conclusion given what I was talking about. To make the Clifton Corridor Heavy Rail would necessitate either the project ending at Emory (the last of the available freight right of way along the route), or double the cost (if not triple or more) of the whole thing for the additional track and tunneling. Even then, there would be fewer stations, lowering the service quality for the area.
I would argue that the Clifton Corridor is already a form of layering LRT upon our Heavy Rail backbone. It is, with Light Rail, able to integrate well into the surrounding neighborhoods far better than heavy rail, and able to take advantage of mostly existing road as well as rail right of ways, while still having enough room to maintain dedicated right of way.
Like the downtown Dallas section, the route is there primarily to serve those right along it, with the heavy rail on either end, and eventual commuter rail on either end and in the middle, taking care of the long-haul trips. Given the current, and future likely development in the area, the combination of services should be enough. If more is needed, there is the option of building out the originally planned Tucker / NE Line as an extension of heavy rail.
That remark & it's language isn't really called for here.
As for transit, I spent several days in considerably smaller Portland recently. If not for their transit system, which has trains & trolleys that are are more extensive in route length & reach much farther out into suburban regions than does MARTA, we would have been incapacitated because of their huge snowfall that occurred just prior to my arrival there.
As a m-f commuter on our MARTA rail system, it was also eye-opening to see how much the transit system gets ridership from what appears to be a broad socio & economic swath of Portlanders.
I don't think that first part is a fair conclusion given what I was talking about. To make the Clifton Corridor Heavy Rail would necessitate either the project ending at Emory (the last of the available freight right of way along the route), or double the cost (if not triple or more) of the whole thing for the additional track and tunneling. Even then, there would be fewer stations, lowering the service quality for the area.
I would argue that the Clifton Corridor is already a form of layering LRT upon our Heavy Rail backbone. It is, with Light Rail, able to integrate well into the surrounding neighborhoods far better than heavy rail, and able to take advantage of mostly existing road as well as rail right of ways, while still having enough room to maintain dedicated right of way.
Like the downtown Dallas section, the route is there primarily to serve those right along it, with the heavy rail on either end, and eventual commuter rail on either end and in the middle, taking care of the long-haul trips. Given the current, and future likely development in the area, the combination of services should be enough. If more is needed, there is the option of building out the originally planned Tucker / NE Line as an extension of heavy rail.
Clifton Corridor doesn't serve the local population much. Its more to get people to and from Emory/CDC. The proposal doesn't have stops within walking distance for many people.
I don't think that first part is a fair conclusion given what I was talking about. To make the Clifton Corridor Heavy Rail would necessitate either the project ending at Emory (the last of the available freight right of way along the route), or double the cost (if not triple or more) of the whole thing for the additional track and tunneling. Even then, there would be fewer stations, lowering the service quality for the area.
I would argue that the Clifton Corridor is already a form of layering LRT upon our Heavy Rail backbone. It is, with Light Rail, able to integrate well into the surrounding neighborhoods far better than heavy rail, and able to take advantage of mostly existing road as well as rail right of ways, while still having enough room to maintain dedicated right of way.
Like the downtown Dallas section, the route is there primarily to serve those right along it, with the heavy rail on either end, and eventual commuter rail on either end and in the middle, taking care of the long-haul trips. Given the current, and future likely development in the area, the combination of services should be enough. If more is needed, there is the option of building out the originally planned Tucker / NE Line as an extension of heavy rail.
I'm also not so certain about the cost differential. They have dramatically altered the original proposals and have a lot of tunneling in their LRT proposals.
Status:
"Pickleball-Free American"
(set 7 days ago)
Location: St Simons Island, GA
23,467 posts, read 44,121,361 times
Reputation: 16866
Quote:
Originally Posted by fourthwarden
I don't think that first part is a fair conclusion given what I was talking about. To make the Clifton Corridor Heavy Rail would necessitate either the project ending at Emory (the last of the available freight right of way along the route), or double the cost (if not triple or more) of the whole thing for the additional track and tunneling. Even then, there would be fewer stations, lowering the service quality for the area.
I would argue that the Clifton Corridor is already a form of layering LRT upon our Heavy Rail backbone. It is, with Light Rail, able to integrate well into the surrounding neighborhoods far better than heavy rail, and able to take advantage of mostly existing road as well as rail right of ways, while still having enough room to maintain dedicated right of way.
Like the downtown Dallas section, the route is there primarily to serve those right along it, with the heavy rail on either end, and eventual commuter rail on either end and in the middle, taking care of the long-haul trips. Given the current, and future likely development in the area, the combination of services should be enough. If more is needed, there is the option of building out the originally planned Tucker / NE Line as an extension of heavy rail.
I think the only difference in our statements is that you are addressing cost, and I wasn't. At least that's what I infer.
DART actually has issues with slow travel speeds in their downtown. Outside of the core, the trains have their own right of way. Inside the core, though, they generally run on street level. Though they have their own lanes and such, they still have to interact with drivers at intersections, parallel roads, and even lanes that momentarily share the right of way. There's also the interaction with pedestrians to consider.
Now, none of that is inherently bad, but it does slow things down an awful lot. It's an inherently downtown-centric system.
So, for example, you could take a MARTA Red or Gold Line train from Arts Center to Garnett, a 3 mi. trip, and finish in 8 min. The train would stop at 7 stations including the start and finish stations.
I could take a DART Green Line train from Victory to Medical Center, a 2.5 mi. trip, and finish in 15 min. The train would stop at 6 stations including the start and finish stations. I don't know if this is true in rush-hour.
These sections are both roughly from one end of the city core to the other, but MARTA has the advantage of traveling underground at speed, and therefore it cuts the time nearly in half despite having an entire extra station.
So, I go back to my comment that none of this is inherently bad. If your idea is to mostly serve the core city without caring too much about through riders, then sure, it's not much of a problem. In fact, that's what our light rail and streetcars will be doing, so in that regard it makes sense to emulate Dallas to an extent. Our future streetcars and light rail could be built in a similar fashion to Dallas' and it would preform beautifully.
That's because those routes are being implemented almost purely for the service of the core (or ITB if we want to be a bit more precise).
Where we have the advantage over Dallas, is that we have a subway backbone that can sprint through the city without needing to deal with cross traffic of any kind. Not only is that great for intracity travel, but it's also wonderful for trying to get from outside one end to the other, with minimal time lost.
So, basically, we can emulate Dallas in their implementation of rail in their core, but their model is not particularly useful for the longer-range trips, especially when we already have a layer of heavy rail to build off of.
The downtown issue is being corrected by building a subway line downtown as well (there's already approximately 3 miles or so of subway already in use heading North out of downtown to Mockingbird Station).
The farthest burbs and Fort Worth currently connect to Dallas via 2 heavy commuter rail lines (TRE & the A-Train) that goes at high speeds on dedicated tracks. The TRE commuter line has double decker trains. A third commuter line is currently under construction (TEX Rail) and with funding now approved for the Cotton Belt Line that will make 4 commuter lines in the metro once that is completed in 6 years.
Central Dallas also has a starter modern street car line that has already completed a 2nd phase extension and it has the historic trolley line connecting Uptown and Downtown that is rumored to extend Northward to the Knox-Henderson district.
Atlanta should look into commuter rail for Cobb, Gwinnett and Clayton and extend the heavy rail to North Fulton and then connect them intown with streetcars and light rail. It could work.
Seattle's light rail is mostly being built underground so it won't have those right-of-way issues, but then again, their residents vote for huge tax increases because they know it will be worth it in a few decades.
Clifton Corridor doesn't serve the local population much. Its more to get people to and from Emory/CDC. The proposal doesn't have stops within walking distance for many people.
Except it could serve the local population as well as those commuting in from further out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bu2
I'm also not so certain about the cost differential. They have dramatically altered the original proposals and have a lot of tunneling in their LRT proposals.
MARTA has been trying to reduce the tunneling costs, [reevaluating the route design](http://www.itsmarta.com/uploadedfile...SlideShow.ppsx) from the previously chosen Local Preferred Alternative. It is still quite likely that the heavy rail trains, which need a larger turning radius and shallower grades compared to the LRVs, would require much more extensive tunneling and right of way provisions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LovinDecatur
I think the only difference in our statements is that you are addressing cost, and I wasn't. At least that's what I infer.
It read, to me, as if you were advocating for replacing the chosen Light Rail technology for Heavy Rail technology in the Clifton Corridor. If that is, in fact, what you're saying, then I was attempting to speak against that suggestion.
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.
Texas trip
