Will Gwinnett County join MARTA? Not likely, officials say (Atlanta: tax rates, legal)

[bu2]

Originally Posted by cqholt

Unless the line is running at grade, it will not be 'relatively cheaply' over HRT. Once the aerial structures and tunnels are included, how much less would the cost really be? Sound Transit built the University Link tunnel, 3.15 miles for $1.9B. https://www.soundtransit.org/About-S...s-capitol-hill

Some of these recent light rail lines (as opposed to "street cars") have been really expensive on a per mile basis.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by cqholt

It appears that GDOT has taken Top-end, rail-based transit off the list of possibilities. http://www.revive285.com/ was once a website that offered transportation alternatives for the Top-end, now the website no longer exist. GDOT and SRTA have made their decision, HOT Lanes!

They made that decision 3 or 4 years ago, but that other link sounded like the mayors wanted to revisit that decision.

[primaltech]

Cost per mile for both LRT lines I am proposing would probably average around $100 million per mile. I'm guessing. I mean, if it's done right. Which would mean only $2 billion for 20 miles worth of rail.

No matter how you slice it though, would be less expensive than HRT. Because you can do at-grade road crossings, running on roads (like Satellite Blvd), and making tighter turns around things, requiring less purchasing and demo'ing of parcels.

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by primaltech

Cost per mile for both LRT lines I am proposing would probably average around $100 million per mile. I'm guessing. I mean, if it's done right. Which would mean only $2 billion for 20 miles worth of rail.

No matter how you slice it though, would be less expensive than HRT. Because you can do at-grade road crossings, running on roads (like Satellite Blvd), and making tighter turns around things, requiring less purchasing and demo'ing of parcels.

And that second paragraph is why it's not a good idea to be cheap on this. There is a massive amount of travel-demand for the corridor already. A good bit more than some other corridors that already have HRT along them. There are two major CBDs along the route, as well as potential future routes into the most active corridors of the northern suburbs. We need better than what you're suggesting, not just for current capacity, but for future uses as well.

Every cost-saving item you listed serves to degrade service by slowing trains, and reducing capacity. That's fine for more neighborhood-focused levels like the BeltLine, but on a corridor like I-285, a better solution is needed, even if it is more expensive.

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by fourthwarden

And that second paragraph is why it's not a good idea to be cheap on this. There is a massive amount of travel-demand for the corridor already. A good bit more than some other corridors that already have HRT along them. There are two major CBDs along the route, as well as potential future routes into the most active corridors of the northern suburbs. We need better than what you're suggesting, not just for current capacity, but for future uses as well.

Every cost-saving item you listed serves to degrade service by slowing trains, and reducing capacity. That's fine for more neighborhood-focused levels like the BeltLine, but on a corridor like I-285, a better solution is needed, even if it is more expensive.

Exactly, cheap-out and build lower quality of service which is slow (at grade crossings, median running) and suburban, demand riders aren't going to use it.

[cwkimbro]

There is a bit being lost here on the LRT vs. HRT cost comparison, at least in relations to costs.

LRT, first and foremost, provides flexibility in how something is designed and engineered.

After that, it's cost depends on how it is designed and engineered.

LRT gives you the ability to put money where the real slow-downs are and do something cheaper where a slow-down wouldn't really exist.

The problem is HRT has no flexibility at all. It will always stay the most expensive throughout.

LRT allows:

-At-grade crossing (not always a bad thing depending on what you're crossing and how many 10's of millions you're saving with no bridge or tunnel at that crossing)

-in-street usage, when needed

-closer stop alignments (this is important because the line can have commuter cased sections, but then an increasing stop frequency through a short area of the alignment in a central business district)

-Can make tighter radius turns

-Can make steeper grade changes.



So I want to show a small idea-piece I have. This isn't meant to be a formal proposal or a discussion of what is best for this area. I'm only trying to show how LRT can lower costs over a section of alignment, while not always jeopardizing speed.


Between Doraville and Gwinnett Place Mall it just so happens that about 1/2 of the alignment has a large powerline corridor. Specifically, it is between the town center of Norcross and just south of Gwinnett Place Mall. There are some pros and cons to this. One of the benefits is that most neighborhoods are already disconnected from this corridor and there are fewer crossings.

The crossings that exist are larger arterial roads and a handul of very quiet residential cross-streets that do not carry hardly any traffic.

HRT would have to be completely separated. Every crossing gets an expensive bridge or tunnel. LRT has the ability to have a bridge at all arterial roads, but have an at-grade crossing with RR crossing arms at all residential streets low in traffic. This would save an extreme amount of building costs, while only making the trip in the corridor longer by a very small amount.


Here is the corridor:




Here is a closer look:

You can easily see a difference in crossings that need grade-separation vs. doesn't to keep speed.





Now what is bad about LRT is they do not always engineer the whole alignment when choosing an LPA. This leaves much information off the table when making a side-by-side comparison.


Now the bad thing is this alignment ignores some key redevelopment areas for cost-savings + Speed benefit, while focusing redevelopment on Gwinnett Place and Norcross. So the cost savings LRT provides really has much to do with that the goals are and what environment you're building into.

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by cwkimbro

There is a bit being lost here on the LRT vs. HRT cost comparison, at least in relations to costs.

You're still loosing operational capacity, and forcing a transfer rather than extending the existing system to allow seamless integration.

LRT is fine and dandy for a lot of things, but for backbones in some of, if not the, highest trafficked corridors in the metro, we really should be using something better. Especially when we have an established system in place to build off of.

Sure you save money now, but given how much the metro is projected to grow, I just don't see those reduced costs as being needed. They're short-term savings with long-term consequences.

Gwinnett would be able to easily afford a heavy-rail extension to Sugarloaf from Doraville, and commuter rail lines to Buford and Lawrenceville, and a myriad of bus rapid transit routes throughout the county if they paid the 1% MARTA sales tax. They don't need to save the money. There's no real benefit for it.

[primaltech]

Originally Posted by fourthwarden

Gwinnett would be able to easily afford a heavy-rail extension to Sugarloaf from Doraville, and commuter rail lines to Buford and Lawrenceville, and a myriad of bus rapid transit routes throughout the county if they paid the 1% MARTA sales tax. They don't need to save the money. There's no real benefit for it.

But that's not the point. They don't want to pay 1% if they can get pretty good mass transit for .5%. They don't like taxes out there. That's why they moved out there. They're frugal. Also, they don't particularly like mass transit. They may be ready for one line, but not multiple lines, and not heavy rail. Maybe they don't want heavy rail because they don't want their county to be or to feel urban. Plus the expense of it.

Unlike Clayton County, Cobb and Gwinnett could generate billions with a half penny, enough for each to get one quality rapid transit line (commuter rail or light rail), plus a lot of improvements to the bus system.

And they're also somewhat averse to MARTA. So... maybe they want to raise 1/2 penny for a non-MARTA branded rail transit of some kind. Or maybe they'd want to join MARTA but at only 1/2 penny. Or maybe only parts of the county could join MARTA. Or maybe Gwinnett and Cobb could join a new version of MARTA, or etc. Lots of possibilities.

I like the idea of LRT because you can run it for miles in the median of Satellite Blvd. There's plenty of space to work with here:

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9618.../data=!3m1!1e3

Surely that would be very cost-effective.

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by primaltech

But that's not the point. They don't want to pay 1% if they can get pretty good mass transit for .5%. They don't like taxes out there. That's why they moved out there. They're frugal. Also, they don't particularly like mass transit. They may be ready for one line, but not multiple lines, and not heavy rail. Maybe they don't want heavy rail because they don't want their county to be or to feel urban. Plus the expense of it.

Yet they spend thousands of dollars a year on vehicle maintenance, gas, insurance, taxes, etc. Waste hundreds of hours a year in traffic.

Unlike Clayton County, Cobb and Gwinnett could generate billions with a half penny, enough for each to get one quality rapid transit line (commuter rail or light rail), plus a lot of improvements to the bus system.

Very true and if MARTA's board voted to allow them to participate with 0.5% sales tax and still get a quality transit network, I see no issue. I think MARTA's board voted Clayton's 0.5% proposal, because they would only be able to fund bare bones bus system.

I like the idea of LRT because you can run it for miles in the median of Satellite Blvd. There's plenty of space to work with here:

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9618.../data=!3m1!1e3

Surely that would be very cost-effective.

I do not see where there is currently median space. Clifton Corridor was criticized for proposing a similar design.

[primaltech]

I bet a lot of people in Gwinnett County would love to have a light rail between Cumberland/SunTrust Park, and Sugarloaf/Gwinnett Center, via Gwinnett Place, Indian Trail park&ride, Gwinnett Village, MARTA Gold line, Perimeter Center, MARTA Red line, Northside Hospital, etc.

Especially if you bring it to them and say it would only cost a 1/2 penny sales tax.

Same thing for Cobb. Bring a solid LRT plan for the I-75 corridor between KSU and Midtown and everything in between, to the voters, with a 1/2 penny price tag.

And both of those lines could potentially have contributions from Atlanta and Fulton and DeKalb (and Dunwoody and Sandy Springs) for the portions of the line in their jurisdictions. Also it could potentially get state funds and federal funds to assist.