New Clifton Corridor Light Rail Alternatives

[cqholt]

Why not just build marta heavy rail?

Expensive, FTA does not fund many HRT projects, except 2nd Ave Subway and WMATA Silver Line. Those projects had to have lots of adjustment for the FTA to approve funding. LRT is the way to go nowadays. Its cheaper, more visible, and if built in exclusive ROW and/or dedicated lanes, can function similar to HRT.
While I like the street-level options. I think it should be grade-separated thru Emory, so it does not get stuck in traffic. I prefer 1B all the way, but during rush-hour the LRT lanes should be used by LRT trains only. I think this plan is a great compromise to the project being cost-effective and not getting stuck in traffic. Its cheaper and more likely to be approved by FTA and get new start funding. The time is very different and the street-level routes have more boardings.

[gtcorndog]

Oh wow. You mean this project doesn't have to cost $1.2 billion for light rail. Amazing.

Still... even the low cost option barely registers in the Med-Low cost effectiveness category.

[arjay57]

I'm just glad to see some action on this project. MARTA needs to up its game if it's going to survive. That means lower fares, and more and better service.

[cqholt]

That's a mighty tight turn they'd have to pull off in Option 1B/1C at the corner of Clifton and N Decatur Rd, whether it's underground or at-grade.

They can pull the tight-turn, using a streetcar only signal, turning from the right-lane. Eg: see the Peachtree Center stop on the Downtown Streetcar.

[aries4118]

Light metro.

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by aries4118

Light metro.

That's basically LRT running in dedicated ROW.

[aries4118]

Originally Posted by cqholt

That's basically LRT running in dedicated ROW.

That's exactly what it is.


And that's the way we should be going...with most of our transit/rail expansions (except for streetcars, commuter rail, and extensions of already-existing heavy rail).

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by aries4118

That's exactly what it is.


And that's the way we should be going...with most of our transit/rail expansions (except for streetcars, commuter rail, and extensions of already-existing heavy rail).

This line is a mixture of grade-separated ROW and street-running sections. I think it could work, as long as the trains have dedicated lanes in congested areas.

[aries4118]

Originally Posted by cqholt

This line is a mixture of grade-separated ROW and street-running sections. I think it could work, as long as the trains have dedicated lanes in congested areas.

Yes--"it could work."

But--it is not the smart way to go by any means.


Light metro line from Armour Valley to Cheshire Bridge to Sage Hill to Emory to Clairmont to North Druid Hills Road to Northlake and beyond.


And same light metro line continuing southwest from Armour Valley to Atlantic Station to Hemphill Avenue to West Midtown to Northyards to Luckie-Marietta/West Park/Olympic Park to Five Points to Castleberry Hill to Whitehall to Mechanicsville/Pittsburgh to along eastside of Connector going south to the Airport...and beyond.

[MattCW]

Again, the street running components of either the LPA or the new alternatives render a "light metro" system impossible for this corridor. The LRT technology proposed for the corridor can easily serve similar capacities as these light metro systems. Unlike the streetcar which is length-constrained by the stops, the stations on Clifton Corridor can be easily extended to support many more vehicles. In addition, something like what New Jersey Transit has done for their Hudson-Bergen Light Rail could be done in the future, extending the existing trains cars and adding capacity. There is no need to waste money on a huge, completely grade-separated RoW, with much larger turn radii, system that's overkill.